What is land ownership anyways

theloniusfleabag · July 22, 2005

Dear Hugo,

Mr. no-objective-rights-for-anyone,

Not exactly correct, for I bestow 'rights' upon people on a daily basis.

who are you to be telling them they are wrong?

Again, that depends upon what you believe.

Riverwind · July 22, 2005

Leader of what? In order to be leader of anything he is going to have to create the mechanisms of Government from nothing and persuade many people to help him do this. This represents a public-goods problem since people are unlikely to contribute to the creation of a State that most of them will not benefit from.

Any group of people will quickly realize that some things are better handled as communally - defence and rule enforcement are good examples. If the group is large enough they will need to delegate management of communal activities to one person or a group of people. They will usually turn to their natural leaders to take on this task. Management of these communal tasks evolves in a government like structure if the society is large enough. No conquest is required, however, in most cases the need to defend yourself against others that may want to conquer you is a key motivator for supporting the communal defense strategy.

There is also the avenue of private charities, simulations of which indicate that in the absence of heavy taxation and State appropriation of charitable means will enjoy increased funding.

People are greedy. For the most part they would only give a fraction of what they pay today in taxes to charity. Furthermore, it creates a situation where the really greedy who pay nothing benefit from the actions of the generous. This would create an unstable dynamic in society that would either end up with no one giving to charity or 'compulsory' charity which would be taxes by another name.

But how exactly does the State assist these people today? I see a great many homeless and destitute people in any society, so please don't tell me that the State is doing a better job helping those on the bottom rung of the ladder - it just ain't so!

As someone else said, the onus is on you to show that the anarchist system could do better since you are advocating the change. The evidence shows that countries with less generous government programs have more people living in destitution.

It would if you consented to it. Consider this: many credit cards charge an annual fee. This is like an access fee. Is it actionable because it affects the value of the credit card? No, and why? Because it was agreed to in advance.

Credit cards are easy to change and the supply of the them is infinite. Land is a finite resource and difficult to exchange. That difference means that normal competition and choices do not apply and the weak are more vulnerable.

Yes. Look at eBay. Are you familiar with their ratings systems? In any case, it's a subjective valuation. People will weigh the deal against the chance of getting screwed. If, in their eyes, it's worth it, then they'll make the deal. For you to say that is wrong is your attempt to tell other people what they should value and what they should do.

eBay works because eBay takes steps to ensure that the integrity of the ratings system. In the real world it is very difficult to come by accurate knowledge of what others think of an individual.

Is fair-trade coffee a joke?

It is a joke. It is easy for affluent consumers to spend a few pennies extra on a luxury item. But when it comes time to fill up their SUVs they will happily deal with even the most abusive corporations to save a few bucks.

How about Wal-Mart's no-questions-asked returns policy - is that a joke?

Wal-Mart uses its buying power to force suppliers to take back product for whatever reason and refund the cost to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is a the stereotype of an abusive corporation that brutally takes advantage of its weaker suppliers - they are a corporate equivalent of Smith. You could argue that all is fair in a free market and then you prove my point. Smith could screw Jones and not suffer a bit for it.

You're presuming an incentive to collude where none exists. If landlords are greedy and unfair, then they leave the market wide open to any competitor who is a fair trader.

Without anti-trust laws any industry dominated by a few large players will see collusion. There is too much profit to be made by milking consumers together. You must remember that, unlike video consoles, many market places have high barriers to entry such as hydro, water and gas distribution. Any upstart would have to start in a geophically isolated location and would be quickly forced out of business by incumbants who could afford to lose money in some areas if it could force a possible competitor out of business. Only a government has the power to ensure fair competition in these kinds of markets.

But as I have demonstrated above, the strength of the anarcho-capitalist system is that it does not depend upon changes in human nature. Of course any society will work better when people are more virtuous, that goes without saying. But for any given level of selfishness or altruism, anarchy will always work better than a State. It is collectivism and Statism that presume a selflessness in man that just isn't there. This is why they always fail.

The state exists to protect the majority who would like to live more or less by the rules from the minority who would not. Fear of loss of reputation is only effective in relatively homogeneous societies (like Japan used to be) where businesses are local. Today global corporations can get away with the most ridiculous abuses in one country while making bags of money in another. Consumer groups that try to boycott abusive corporations are largely ineffective. Their successes are may be high profile but represent a fraction of the marketplace.

Hugo · July 23, 2005

Not exactly correct, for I bestow 'rights' upon people on a daily basis.

It's correct. You reject objective rights. Your statement above illustrates that.

Again, that depends upon what you believe.

Well, unless you can demonstrate to me that you are in some way objectively superior to other men I reject your claim that you should be able to tell them what they must believe.

Hugo · July 23, 2005

Any group of people will quickly realize that some things are better handled as communally - defence and rule enforcement are good examples.

This is indeed how corporations and companies are formed - several people get together because they have worked out that by working together, all can get more since a problem can be handled better. Eventually, such a cooperative can reach tens of thousands of people.

But the connection between that and a coercive State still has not been drawn.

People are greedy. For the most part they would only give a fraction of what they pay today in taxes to charity.

I've never seen a simulation that bears that out. Perhaps you can cite your source. The very existence of charities illustrates that there is an omnipresent tendency amongst humans for compassion and charitable giving (this was a problem Darwin was never really able to answer). The reason why it has diminished under the State is because the State has taken upon itself many of the matters that used to devolve upon private charity and family support. If you look at communities such as the Mormons that reject State charity you will see that they entirely support their own less fortunate members privately and noncoercively. If the abolition of the State would lead to less charity, then we could expect that under a smaller State charitable giving would be less than under a much larger one, however, people in the relatively minarchist North America were always far, far more charitable than the people of the USSR, and their poor were always much better off.

As someone else said, the onus is on you to show that the anarchist system could do better since you are advocating the change. The evidence shows that countries with less generous government programs have more people living in destitution.

I'm curious to see this evidence. I would also like to know why you think they are destitute and how it is you think that government can help. All countries, no matter how Statist, still have these problems. Sweden, for instance, has not been able to solve the problem of poverty - it still exists. All the Swedish State has bought is a huge debt and an unsustainable welfare state. For instance, if the homeless are destitute because they are unwilling to work, then taxing the workers to give to them is likely to compound the problem since it provides a disincentive for workers to continue working - their effective wage has been diminished. Doing this is likely to increase the ranks of the destitute, at which point more taxes are needed, and the problem balloons and the solution becomes unsustainable - the end result is that everyone is worse off for the State's intervention.

Credit cards are easy to change and the supply of the them is infinite. Land is a finite resource and difficult to exchange. That difference means that normal competition and choices do not apply and the weak are more vulnerable.

This is irrelevant. Your original contention was that any access fee is a tort. My reply is that it isn't if it was consented to in advance.

eBay works because eBay takes steps to ensure that the integrity of the ratings system. In the real world it is very difficult to come by accurate knowledge of what others think of an individual.

No, actually, it's pretty easy. Just request their credit rating. It's much the same thing, easy to obtain, and will tell you their entire history of dealings with others. Corporations have credit ratings too. This data will tell you who a person has dealt with (enabling you to contact them for their personal opinion of the person), what the business was, whether or not he upheld his end of the deal, and so on.

It is a joke. It is easy for affluent consumers to spend a few pennies extra on a luxury item. But when it comes time to fill up their SUVs they will happily deal with even the most abusive corporations to save a few bucks.

The reason why these corporations are abusive is, ironically, the State. You see, back in the 18th and 19th Centuries Western governments made pollution no longer a tort. Before then, if some factory spewed soot all over your house, you could sue them. But in the name of social progress, States outlawed this. Predictably, the Industrial Revolution produced an incredible amount of pollution since the State had removed the principal reason bar none for them to reduce it. Now the reason why we have SUVs and so forth is because of that change to the law. If it were not the case, every internal combustion engine would be a tort, and they wouldn't be used anymore. Corporations are abusive where the State enables it. If you can provide me an example of a corporation that was "abusive" without State collusion or enablement I should like to hear it!

Wal-Mart uses its buying power to force suppliers to take back product for whatever reason and refund the cost to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is a the stereotype of an abusive corporation that brutally takes advantage of its weaker suppliers - they are a corporate equivalent of Smith.

This is just nonsensical. If the suppliers don't like it they can all sell to other resellers - they do exist, and if Wal-Mart had no suppliers they'd go out of business. Don't think it can't be done, because companies bigger than Wal-Mart have already been toppled in the free market - Diners Club, Standard Oil, A&P, HBC, Woolworths, IBM. What Wal-Mart has actually done is to achieve success by offering cheaper goods, which raises real incomes - basically, Wal-Mart got rich by making consumers richer. What Wal-Mart does, it does with the consent of all concerned. Doubtless there are some suppliers who can't meet Wal-Mart's demands, but are you advocating that Wal-Mart must be forced to buy? How is this any less wrong than (allegedly) forcing suppliers to sell?

Without anti-trust laws any industry dominated by a few large players will see collusion.

Government is the biggest colluder of all. Don't you think it's ironic to give a monopoly on pursuing monopolists? The first examples that come to mind of a monopoly (or near monopoly) that arose in the free market is Microsoft and Standard Oil. Neither ever had a total monopoly like the State has, both just had market share in the high 90th percentile. However, Standard Oil got this dominance by slashing oil prices to about 10% of what they were before, and Microsoft similarly became dominant by slashing prices - before MS Word, similar software cost $300-400. Microsoft cut that down by 80-90%. Financial software used to cost several hundred dollars, but since MS Money, the price is now around $20.

And no, neither of these companies ever gouged their customers once they had domination. The reason is simple: in a free market, monopoly is not guaranteed and even the threat of competition acts like competition. Microsoft must remain competitive even though it has 97% of the desktop OS market, because it knows that if it does not, Apple, Red Hat, Sun et al will swoop down and take away their enviable position.

You must remember that, unlike video consoles, many market places have high barriers to entry such as hydro, water and gas distribution.

Video consoles have a very high entry barrier. To build a chip fabrication plant alone costs between $2.5 and $3 billion dollars today. Retooling an existing one doesn't cost a lot less. A new coal-fired power plant in Omaha is being built for $0.8 billion. So that claim falls down pretty fast.

But in any case, with a sound business model and a realistic chance of success, investment capital can be found for any venture. Even the threat that someone would do this would keep existing "colluders" competitive. What makes hydro, water, gas and other utilities uncompetitive now is that the State has guaranteed their business and outlawed competition with them. So, they don't have competition and they don't fear competition - they can be as inefficient as they like, and generally, their operations are run as a model of inefficiency.

Hugo · July 23, 2005

The state exists to protect the majority who would like to live more or less by the rules from the minority who would not.

But nothing protects the minority from the majority. Thus we see abuses against them, like the American and Canadian kidnapping and detention of Japanese citizens during WWII without trial or due process, like the Tuskagee Syphilis study, segregation, and more. All of these took place within democratic States. So basically, what you mean to say is that the democratic State gives the majority a cloak of legitimacy and a systematic thoroughness with which to exploit and abuse the minority.

Fear of loss of reputation is only effective in relatively homogeneous societies (like Japan used to be) where businesses are local. Today global corporations can get away with the most ridiculous abuses in one country while making bags of money in another.

First of all, reputation is very important to a company. Corporations also have credit ratings that they have to honour. Secondly, the abuses that most leftists accredit to corporations are, in actual fact, committed not by the corporation but by a State - in collusion, certainly, but the State is the primary abuser. For example, Shell's supposed actions in Nigeria were not committed by Shell directly but by the corrupt and violent Nigerian State. Shell alone would not have done anything - going to war is simply too expensive for a corporation to consider, and if faced with the need for violence a corporation would simply pull out and do business elsewhere. States feel no such restraint because the money they spend does not belong to them and was expropriated rather than acquired in free exchange. If a corporation can externalize the costs of violence to a State, however, don't think they won't do it. But somehow, I don't think the answer to the problem of State violence and aggression is more Statism.

Consumer groups that try to boycott abusive corporations are largely ineffective.

The Montgomery bus boycott was completely successful, and enjoyed that success despite the opposition of the State. The ultimate boycott is when consumers decide that products are uncompetitive and cease to buy, as happened to Diners Club, for instance. But if a boycott is unsuccessful, that just means the majority of consumers don't share the values of the boycotters - and if so, who are you to tell them their values are wrong, yours are right, and if they don't do what you want they must be forced by violence or the threat thereof?

For instance, let's say we had two corporations operating in Africa under anarchy. One is forcibly taking the produce of peasants at gunpoint, the other is offering a fair market price. The first would see falling productivity since the peasants don't want to be expropriated, so they will hide their grain, resist violently, and so forth. They will have to employ more thugs to extract less grain. Their prices will rise.

On the other hand, the second corporation will see rising productivity since peasants will want to grow more so they can sell and get more money. They need employ no thugs since the peasants want to sell, they don't need to be coerced. Their costs are much lower and their production for a given investment higher. Their prices will fall.

Therefore, in the stores, the products of the first company will be considerably more expensive than those of the second. The consumers will vote with their pocketbooks as they always do, and the first corporation must mend its ways or be run out of business.

Riverwind · July 23, 2005

This is indeed how corporations and companies are formed - several people get together because they have worked out that by working together, all can get more since a problem can be handled better. Eventually, such a cooperative can reach tens of thousands of people.
But the connection between that and a coercive State still has not been drawn.

We have hashed this issue before. There is absolutely no difference between the Government of Canada and a corporation. The Corporation of Canada, like Wal-Mart is entitled to a monopoly within land that it owns. It is free to set the rules within its property and is entitled to use force on people that refuse to follow the rules. Shares in Corporation of Canada are issued on a per person basis so each person is entitled to vote. The Board of Directors (Parliament) is elected by a majority of shareholders to represent the interests of the Shareholders. However, like any Corporation, the BOD does not always act in way approved by 100% of the shareholders.

If you dispute that fact that the Corporation of Canada effectively owns all of the land within its territory then you can you show any evidence that any other entity has a more valid claim (maybe the Natives but certainly not any existing corporation or individual). It is not enough to simply turn the argument around and demand that I prove that Canada owns the land.

The Shareholders are also customers and pay the Corporation of Canada to provide services. If they wish to access similar services offered by other Corporations they are free to leave the property of the Corporation of Canada and enter the property of another Corporation. If you are shopping at Wal-Mart you would never expect them to allow their customers to buy from Sears while they are in the store.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada does not have a monopoly. There are at least 150 Government/Corporations in the world and the number is increasing every day. If you do not like the way the Corporation of Canada is run you are free to leave and become part of another Government/Corporation - if you can pay the entrance fee.

You really can't complain that all useful land in the world is already owned by one of these Government/Corporations and they won't sell to you a price you can afford since you have no right to buy something if there is no willing seller.

In short, if you believe that Corporations are useful vehicles for collective action then so are Governments. If you believe that Governments are coercive entities then so are Corporations. The distinctions you try to make are artifical.

Hugo · July 23, 2005

There is absolutely no difference between the Government of Canada and a corporation.

Yes, there is: the Government is allowed to use violence. A corporation is not. The Government can use violence to assure its continued monopoly. A corporation cannot. A Government can legitimise its own crimes. A corporation cannot. And so forth.

The Corporation of Canada, like Wal-Mart is entitled to a monopoly within land that it owns.

This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Who says it owns the land? Why is it entitled to a monopoly? How is Wal-Mart also entitled to a monopoly? If Wal-Mart is entitled to a monopoly then what is Sears, and Target, and Zellers, and so on? If Wal-Mart is entitled to a monopoly then they are not entitled to exist, are they?

Certainly corporations are entitled to pursue a monopoly, and in effect that's what they all do. However, the State is the only entity which systematically uses violence to pursue its monopoly. Why is that legitimate? Why is the State allowed to do what it forbids to private citizens?

Shares in Corporation of Canada are issued on a per person basis so each person is entitled to vote.

They are not issued. If they were they would be tradeable, like shares. Votes cannot be transferred. Votes are also not the same since they give a person power over another who does not consent. A majority shareholder can dictate what happens to another person's shares in that company (which happens by consent) but he cannot run their life. However, a democratic majority can very easily run another person's life without their ever having consented: they can tell them where to live, who to marry, where to work, what to buy, where to worship, what to read, etc. Shareholding doesn't grant any of this, ever.

If you dispute that fact that the Corporation of Canada effectively owns all of the land within its territory then you can show be evidence that any other entity has a more valid claim (maybe the Natives but certainly not any existing corporation or individual).

What about those existing corporations and individuals who bought - or whose predecessors bought - the land off the natives in free trade, and the natives having acquired it through nonviolent homesteading? I would say that they have a greater claim than the Government, who only acquires anything by violently expropriating it from a person who acquired it by free trade or homesteading.

If they wish to access similar services offered by other Corporations they are free to leave the property of the Corporation of Canada and enter the property of another Corporation.

Circular argument. The Government is legitimate because if you don't like it, you can leave. However, if I am obliged to leave if I don't like it that must mean that the government is legitimate. For an analogy, while you are in your house you must pay me $5 per hour. This is legitimate because if you don't like it you can leave.

If you are shopping at Wal-Mart you would never expect them to allow their customers to buy from Sears while they are in the store.

But I can choose whether I'd like to buy from Wal-Mart or Sears without moving house.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada does not have a monopoly. There are at least 150 Government/Corporations in the world and the number is increasing every day.

Read my definition again, please. The definition of a State is an institution that monopolizes at least the services of law enforcement and justice within a given geographical area by coercion. This does not fit corporations who do not enjoy monopoly within a given area. For instance, I can use Microsoft Windows or I can use Linux without moving anywhere. Besides, if what you say were true then we already have anarchy.

In short, if you believe that Corporations are useful vehicles for collective action then so are Governments.

I could do if all the arguments you base this conclusion on weren't completely derelict and easily refutable.

theloniusfleabag · July 23, 2005

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE
who are you to be telling them they are wrong?

Again, that depends upon what you believe.

Well, unless you can demonstrate to me that you are in some way objectively superior to other men I reject your claim that you should be able to tell them what they must believe.

As you can see, I do not propose to tell (or force) people 'what to believe', I am saying that they are wrong.

I have outlined; the 'nature of existence', the nature of 'rights', and the meaning of life. Belief or disbelief does not alter truth.

Hugo · July 23, 2005

As you can see, I do not propose to tell (or force) people 'what to believe', I am saying that they are wrong.
I have outlined; the 'nature of existence', the nature of 'rights', and the meaning of life. Belief or disbelief does not alter truth.

I believe we debated on the nature of existence for quite a while before you bowed out having proved nothing. Your theory on the nature of rights is that there are no objective rights, so basically, you acknowledge that the State "should" or "ought" not to exist (these are normative arguments, which you reject), but only exists because it has the power to violently force itself on others - so to wit, the State is like a more successful Mafia. I fail to see how this is a compelling argument for the State over anarchy.

theloniusfleabag · July 24, 2005

Dear Hugo,

I believe we debated on the nature of existence for quite a while before you bowed out having proved nothing.

To the best of my recollection, I did define existence. Then, rather than 'bowing out', I believe the discussion moved to one or more other threads.

but only exists because it has the power to violently force itself on others - so to wit, the State is like a more successful Mafia. I fail to see how this is a compelling argument for the State over anarchy

As I have said in the past, the state is supposed to be for the benefit of all, not the few, and is more often than not, misused. A more true analogy would be that of gun ownership. The gun itself is impartial, but most people say 'it is for self defence', yet self-defence shootings with a gun account for less than 20% of gun deaths.

Hugo · July 24, 2005

As I have said in the past, the state is supposed to be for the benefit of all, not the few, and is more often than not, misused.

How is it to be the for benefit of all? It's a system whereby a minority can exist parasitically by systematically robbing the majority. You may think democracy is a control, but the means of democracy are entirely within the hands of the State. As I said before, you can see minor failures in the Martin government of Canada, or in Bill Clinton's overwhelming number of "illegal" campaign contributions, or you can see a massive failure in Nazi Germany or Lincoln's USA, which perfectly illustrate that the only supposed checks and balances on a democratically elected State are within the control of the State itself. Once elected, there is really nothing to stop a party consolidating absolute power. It is not a matter of policy or design to stop a State turning upon its people, it is a matter of time and nothing else. The US Government was conceived as a libertarian, minarchist State to preserve property rights. It took that State exactly 85 years to turn on its own people in a massively violent and murderous way. The German State was conceived as a socialist framework for the prosperity of the German people, and it took that State only 62 years to turn upon its own people in an even worse fashion - perhaps their time was shorter and the effects worse because their State never had any delusions of laissez-faire or minimalism.

A more true analogy would be that of gun ownership. The gun itself is impartial, but most people say 'it is for self defence', yet self-defence shootings with a gun account for less than 20% of gun deaths.

This is a very bad analogy. The gun is not an acting agent with its own aims, desires, values and views. The gun won't try to talk its owner into firing it to serve the aims of the gun.

theloniusfleabag · July 24, 2005

Dear Hugo,

It's a system whereby a minority can exist parasitically by systematically robbing the majority.

Careful with your wording there, Hitler used almost the exact same phrasing to justify eradication of what he called 'Jewish parasites'.

The US Government was conceived as a libertarian, minarchist State to preserve property rights. It took that State exactly 85 years to turn on its own people in a massively violent and murderous way

Here is a quote from my Encyclopaedia Brittanica Book of the Year (1961) regarding a court case of a black woman trying to promote integration in Little Rock.

Bates vs. Little Rock(80 S Ct. 412) The city of Little Rock charged Daisy Bates with violating a city ordinance for refusing to disclose a membership list of the local members of the NAACP. The city claimed it was for the purposes of their power to tax. The court stated that "no power is more basic to the ultimate purpose and function of the government than the power to tax", but found that the real purpose of the ordinance was not taxation but "subtle governmental interference" with the basic right of peaceable assembly.

So, 'the state' can uphold the law against any 'part of itself', if it chooses to do so. And it does, just not often enough.

Hugo · July 24, 2005

Careful with your wording there, Hitler used almost the exact same phrasing to justify eradication of what he called 'Jewish parasites'.

The irony is that Hitler was the parasite. The Jews he lambasted acquired their wealth through free exchange, but Hitler acquired his funds by confiscation under force or threat thereof. The Jews produced and traded, Hitler stole and plundered.

So it is with all States. As von Mises so rightly said, any State action will either use violence or the threat of violence. The parasitic existence, what Oppenheimer termed the "political means" as opposed to the "economic means", is the existence whereby one's livelihood is derived not from toiling to produce or trading with others but by forcibly taking what you need or want.

So, 'the state' can uphold the law against any 'part of itself', if it chooses to do so. And it does, just not often enough.

One cannot judge a person or group by the crimes they do not commit but by the crimes they do. So I'm not particularly interested in judging the US Government by some piddling case in Arkansas when the court overruled some local ordnance, when it was also the case that the US Government destroyed untold amounts of property and killed, or knowingly caused to be killed, 620,000 Americans (almost 2% of the population) between 1861 and 1865.

That comparison would be like weighing the fact that Ted Bundy always paid his credit card bills against the 36 or so brutal murders he committed. It just turns you into a desperate and unrealistic apologist.

theloniusfleabag · July 24, 2005

Dear Hugo,

when it was also the case that the US Government destroyed untold amounts of property and killed, or knowingly caused to be killed, 620,000 Americans (almost 2% of the population) between 1861 and 1865.

It takes two to tango. Don't forget, or unless you don't know, the period you refer to was the Civil War. The Conferderates wanted to secede from 'the union', sure, but weren't 'anarcho-capitalists', they were slavers and 'states' unto themselves.

So it is with all States. As von Mises so rightly said, any State action will either use violence or the threat of violence. The parasitic existence, what Oppenheimer termed the "political means" as opposed to the "economic means", is the existence whereby one's livelihood is derived not from toiling to produce or trading with others but by forcibly taking what you need or want.

So too, is it with all individual transactions, and where von Mises has blinders on. Property ownership, and especially land ownership, is based on violence or the threat of violence. In the overwhelming majority of value, your personal property rights are upheld (or bestowed) by the threat of violence on your behalf, by the state.

The irony is that Hitler was the parasite. The Jews he lambasted acquired their wealth through free exchange, but Hitler acquired his funds by confiscation under force or threat thereof. The Jews produced and traded, Hitler stole and plundered.

Have to agree here.

Hugo · July 25, 2005

Don't forget, or unless you don't know, the period you refer to was the Civil War. The Conferderates wanted to secede from 'the union', sure, but weren't 'anarcho-capitalists', they were slavers and 'states' unto themselves.

The irony is that the only real difference between the so-called Civil War and the American Revolution was who won, the secessionists or the imperialists. The War Between the States was just an imperial struggle, a war waged by the US Government against its own citizenry. Regardless, the irrefutable point is that democracy is not a good check or balance on State power and abuse of power since it has failed, repeatedly and catastrophically.

So too, is it with all individual transactions, and where von Mises has blinders on. Property ownership, and especially land ownership, is based on violence or the threat of violence.

But not the initiation of violence, as the State is. We've been over this before. Using violence to defend yourself is not the same as using violence to take from someone else.

Otherwise, as we have also been over before, there's no moral distinction between the Holocaust and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Riverwind · July 25, 2005

Yes, there is: the Government is allowed to use violence. A corporation is not.

Corporations are entitled to use violence to protect their property. How much violence they are allowed to use depends on the danger, however, the same rules apply to government agents. A police officer that uses unreasonable force will be charged and the victim is entitled to compensation - no different than if someone was hurt by an agent of a company.

However, a democratic majority can very easily run another person's life without their ever having consented: they can tell them where to live, who to marry, where to work, what to buy, where to worship, what to read, etc. Shareholding doesn't grant any of this, ever.

If you are on company property you must follow company rules - period. If a company says you can't smoke and drink then you can't smoke and drink. All being a shareholder does is give you some say in what the rules are.

What about those existing corporations and individuals who bought - or whose predecessors bought - the land off the natives in free trade, and the natives having acquired it through nonviolent homesteading?

No such people exist. All homesteading in North America was an act of violence because the British used force to kill off or suppress natives before the homesteaders were allowed in. In rare cases, metis groups set up settlements with the approval of natives, however, this is exception as opposed to the rule. The overwhelming majority of the land in this country belongs to either the government or the natives collectively depending - none of it belongs to private landholders or corporations.

For an analogy, while you are in your house you must pay me $5 per hour. This is legitimate because if you don't like it you can leave.

If you rented the land my property sits on then you would be entitled to charge be a fee that worked out to $5/hour. You cannot own any land in any country - all land is owned by the government - property title holders simply have contracts that allow them to use the land for purposes the government approves of.

Read my definition again, please. The definition of a State is an institution that monopolizes at least the services of law enforcement and justice within a given geographical area by coercion. This does not fit corporations who do not enjoy monopoly within a given area. For instance, I can use Microsoft Windows or I can use Linux without moving anywhere. Besides, if what you say were true then we already have anarchy.

Disney owns large geographic areas. It does not need to use coersion because it pays taxes to the government so it can call in government agents when it has problems. Without any government structure, many corporations will acquire large tracts of land and act like governments and it would be perfectly legitimate according to rules you advocate. This is basically why I think your arguments are so weak - they depend entirely on a belief that governments are the only human institution capable of violence - this is false. If you removed governments it would be corporations and large land holders that would be using the violence and the average person would be much much worse off.

Hugo · July 25, 2005

Corporations are entitled to use violence to protect their property.

A Government's property must therefore be everything in the entire country, since they seem determined to use violence to defend their property from me (i.e. to prevent me from spending my income - sorry, their income - instead of tithing it to them as taxes). It also seems to include quite a lot of things outside the country in the case of many States as well.

A police officer that uses unreasonable force will be charged and the victim is entitled to compensation

Substitute:

A police officer that uses unreasonable force might be charged and the victim will almost certainly not receive compensation.

If you are on company property you must follow company rules - period.

So you are telling me that the entire country is the Government's property, along with everyone in it? We are all slaves of the State and everything we have, we lease from them and do not own?

Otherwise, what right do they have telling us what to do with it or giving away shares in their operation?

No such people exist. All homesteading in North America was an act of violence because the British used force to kill off or suppress natives before the homesteaders were allowed in.

Yes, your lefty history classes might have told you this but there are a lot of instances where white settlers dealt fairly with the natives. For instance, the Pennsylvania Quakers insisted on treating the Indians as equals, on trading fairly for anything they wished to exchange, and if an Indian was accused of a crime the jury would always consist of 6 white men and 6 Indians. They even sent their children to live with the Indians.

Of course, the Pennsylvania Quakers were later themselves expropriated by the British Government.

If you rented the land my property sits on then you would be entitled to charge be a fee that worked out to $5/hour.

Totally and utterly missing the point.

You cannot own any land in any country - all land is owned by the government

Why? What makes them special? Why do only they get to own land? Do they have two heads?

Disney owns large geographic areas.

According to you it doesn't own anything. Why can't you keep your story straight over two paragraphs?

Without any government structure, many corporations will acquire large tracts of land and act like governments and it would be perfectly legitimate according to rules you advocate.

Certainly! They can't force people onto their land, and if they want to, they're going to have to play nice or they'll lose all their business to corporations who will be more willing to meet consumer demands. Do you know why you can't sell ice to Inuits? Because they don't want to buy it. It's crucial that you come to understand this point.

This is basically why I think your arguments are so weak - they depend entirely on a belief that governments are the only human institution capable of violence - this is false.

It's absolutely false. There are many groups and individuals that employ violence - the Mafia, the Triads, the Yakuza, and individual murderers, muggers, rapists etc. The Government just happens to the the greatest and most systematic instigator of all.

theloniusfleabag · July 27, 2005

Dear Hugo,

There are many groups and individuals that employ violence - the Mafia, the Triads, the Yakuza, and individual murderers, muggers, rapists etc. The Government just happens to the the greatest and most systematic instigator of all.

These are examples of criminal organizations, and of lawless brigands. If you would eliminate gov't, (and therefore law, and the definitions of crime) these people would cease to become criminals. What the gov't does (by and large) is not criminal. Collecting taxes is not criminal in this country. Why? Because the gov't said so. WWHy can they say so? Because they wield the overwhelming force. (That and because 99.9% of people reject anarchy as a plausible alternative).

Riverwind · July 27, 2005

It's absolutely false. There are many groups and individuals that employ violence - the Mafia, the Triads, the Yakuza, and individual murderers, muggers, rapists etc. The Government just happens to the the greatest and most systematic instigator of all.

You left out corporations, churches, unions and families from that list. All human institutions can/will use violance to achieve their goals. If you removed gov't from the equation you then will see corporations take over the enforcement responsiblities and would mostly likely be more arbitrary and unfair that gov't. At least a democratic gov't has formal instututions that are designed to reduce the unfair/arbitrary nature of the use of force.

Humans - through darwinian evolution - have figured out that the most effective way to run a society is to give one institution the right/responsible to use force when necessary on behalf of all of the others. That is why gov't has the exclusive right to use force - because someone has to do the dirty work.

Hugo · July 27, 2005

These are examples of criminal organizations, and of lawless brigands. If you would eliminate gov't, (and therefore law, and the definitions of crime) these people would cease to become criminals. What the gov't does (by and large) is not criminal. Collecting taxes is not criminal in this country. Why? Because the gov't said so. WWHy can they say so? Because they wield the overwhelming force.

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't get rid of the biggest and most vicious group of organized criminals because another group of organized criminals might take over.

Basically, your argument against anarchy is that we would end up with a State again, therefore, you propose a State. To coin an analogy, this is like refusing to treat a terminal and painful cancer because you think the patient will just relapse and get cancer again afterwards, and you think the cancer they have is somehow better than the cancer they might get.

You left out corporations, churches, unions and families from that list.

These groups operate consensually or are recognised as criminals. You somehow pretend that without the State, nobody would recognise criminal activity. This is a self-contradiction. If humans were unable to recognise criminal activity we would not have a State that could recognise it either, since it is comprised of humans. Therefore, if what you say is true, then under our current system we should be unable to formulate any kind of ethics or social mores. The very fact that you are here and are using the word 'criminal' demolishes this entire argument. All I needed to do was to point your gun at your foot and watch you shoot yourself in it.

At least a democratic gov't has formal instututions that are designed to reduce the unfair/arbitrary nature of the use of force.

Unfortunately, these institutions are within the realm of the State itself. Thus a State is basically expected to police itself. The only true check and balance is the threat of violent revolution, which is no small undertaking with no guarantee of success. For an illustration, consider that the Nazi Party came to power according to the letter of the Weimar Constitution and thereafter abrogated all democracy in favour of tyrannical rule. Lincoln's government ignored States rights and instigated a bloody war against its own people. Roosevelt's government stole a huge amount of gold from the American people, imprisoned thousands of people without trial or due process, etc.

Humans - through darwinian evolution - have figured out that the most effective way to run a society is to give one institution the right/responsible to use force when necessary on behalf of all of the others.

That is another self-contradiction. Darwinism claims that the strong will overcome the weak, strength having been achieved by superior evolution to adapt to one's environment. There is nothing in Darwinism to explain why an individual would help a weaker one, and Darwin himself struggled with this paradox - the only argument he could come up with was the rather weak one of evolution of a species as a whole rather than of individuals. However, Darwinism would also identify a State as what it is: a means for the minority to plunder and pillage from the majority on a systematic basis. There's nothing in Darwinism to say that the State should benefit "all the others" at all, and sure enough, it invariably doesn't.

theloniusfleabag · July 27, 2005

Dear Hugo,

There's nothing in Darwinism to say that the State should benefit "all the others" at all, and sure enough, it invariably doesn't.

The beauty of Darwinism is that it is fundamental. Almost human action is, or can be, above the fundamental, through reason, logic and choice. It explains how we came to be where we are, but that doesn't mean we could not choose another direction from this point onward.

Most 'states' purport to be for the benefit of all, they just don't choose to act selflessly about it. Certain states have, in the past, been for the benefit of the 'one', such as fiefdoms or even kingdoms, but even these had to take into account the needs of all, lest the king starve. Or, if the ruler(s) are sarcastic about it, and tell the people "eat cake", they may just rise up, take you to the guillotine and shorten you a bit.

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't get rid of the biggest and most vicious group of organized criminals because another group of organized criminals might take over.

Basically, if you continue to use the term 'vicious gang' to describe the gov't, I shall put this in your terms. Hugo, we all can belong to any 'gang' we like. I choose to belong to one called "Canadians" (although in some parts of our turf, some gamg members call themselves 'Les Habitants'). They collect 'protection money' from me, but formulate set rates to distribute that collection method so it doesn't cripple my ability to pay. In return, I get free schooling, access to doctors, roadways and a police and judicial system which they claim treats everyone equally. If I follow the rules, which seem fair to me, I'll be ok, usually. The stipulation is, that if I quit the gang, I have to move, because I cannot take any part of their turf with me...not that I could move it anyway, because it is just there (property ownership). If I choose to move, it will invariably be onto anoither gang's turf, and then I would be subjected to their rules, whether I like them or not. Sometimes, gangs can operate within another gang's turf, but it is a risk. Actually, belonging to either is a risk, but I am free to choose the path that minimizes the risk. One thing I cannot choose is to be a 'gang of one', for I would have to forcibly take some 'turf' away from one of the established gangs. Impossible, unless you have some sort of 'overwhelming force'.

Hugo · July 27, 2005

Most 'states' purport to be for the benefit of all, they just don't choose to act selflessly about it. Certain states have, in the past, been for the benefit of the 'one', such as fiefdoms or even kingdoms, but even these had to take into account the needs of all, lest the king starve. Or, if the ruler(s) are sarcastic about it, and tell the people "eat cake", they may just rise up, take you to the guillotine and shorten you a bit.

Plus ca change. All States depend upon the acquiescence of their subjects.

Basically, if you continue to use the term 'vicious gang' to describe the gov't, I shall put this in your terms. Hugo, we all can belong to any 'gang' we like. I choose to belong to one called "Canadians" (although in some parts of our turf, some gamg members call themselves 'Les Habitants'). They collect 'protection money' from me...

Firstly, I fail to see why your acquiescence to a particular criminal gang means that I ought to similarly acquiesce.

Secondly, I think that it is rather closed-minded of you to accept these protection rackets having never considered the possibility of a voluntaryist society free from protection rackets, or at least one that recognises all racketeers as criminals rather than just some.

The stipulation is, that if I quit the gang, I have to move, because I cannot take any part of their turf with me.

Then if we already have a sort-of state of anarchy between States, why is it so incomprehensible to you to break down the geopgraphical areas between which it is conducted?

In short, unless you believe we need One World Government, what's wrong with anarchy that's right about the existing international order?

theloniusfleabag · July 27, 2005

Dear Hugo,

Firstly, I fail to see why your acquiescence to a particular criminal gang means that I ought to similarly acquiesce.

I am not suggesting aquiesence on your part. I am saying you will have to break the laws (both of your own gang and of Rothbard's [that of non-instigation]), and fight an incredibly large gang, to establish your gang of one. In short, you will have to employ the methods you claim are wrong. Why? Because that is what it (property ownership) all boils down to.

having never considered the possibility of a voluntaryist society free from protection rackets,

I have considered it, along the lines of your anarcho-syndicalism (and Monty Python's). It is a form of 'voluntary-marxism', which, I have claimed is as close to 'democratic marxism' you can get. It is the favourable spot in the demarcations of these systems which I have espoused all along. the world can choose between; Marxism vs Capitalism, and Democracy vs Totalitarianism. You generally have to marry together the catergories, one as a system of economics and one as a system of rule. The 'anarcho' part would inevitably have to rely on democracy, as in the scene from the 'Holy Grail'..."we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But, all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a civil majority, in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of...Dennis!(old woman cries out) There's some lovely filth down 'ere!"

Or, the anarchists could take turns as absolute dictator, with no democracy, in alphabetical order, say. Either way, decisions will have to be taken by someone on matters that will affect the whole.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the best 'pipe-dream' out there.