How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

abandonconflict said:
Voluntaryism enshrines the right to not only own private property, but to consolidate ever growing properties into private hands to be past in heredity and defended by private armies. The 'hereditary nobility' that arises from this then also employs the occupants of the land (yes, they are free to leave, and be employed by another voluntary serfdom, unless said serfdom allows them to enter, instead of treating them as trespassers). The landlord pays a wage to these serfs and keeps not only the land, but a portion of the product of the labor of the serfs. They are serfs, not chattel, it is a serfdom. Enjoy serfhood.
Click to expand...

Some fantastic imagination you have straight out of a science fiction novel, So you think that given true freedom and equality that then tyrannical slavery would be popular with the slaves and slave owners? I am suprised you don't think we need a government to protect us from this, so whats your idea again? That someone should be allowed to erect a shitter outside my bedroom window?
 
deprave said:
Some fantastic imagination you have straight out of a science fiction novel, So you think that given true freedom and equality that then tyrannical slavery would be popular with the slaves and slave owners? I am suprised you don't think we need a government to protect us from this, so whats your idea again? That someone should be allowed to erect a shitter outside my bedroom window?
Click to expand...

Holy strawboy Batman!

I'm saying, if you think you're a wage slave now, just wait until the Fortune 500 have LIBERTY!
 
abandonconflict said:
Holy strawboy Batman!

I'm saying, if you think you're a wage slave now, just wait until the Fortune 500 have LIBERTY!
Click to expand...

So there will be some sort of grand conspiracy in which all evil people will band together happily being evil together but not towards one another, and take over all 95% of the land currently owned by the U.S government in which they will be CAPABLE of inflicting a tyrannical rule universally spread throughout accepted by all people which is somehow morally and ethically correct and not in violation of the non-agression principle. I just don't see the stars aligning so create such an intrinsically crafted conspiracy against all of mankind. oh wait there is that thing we call the state...:P

So unless you want to detail specifically what your suggesting to combat this grand conspiracy this conversation is at a dead end. My suggestion is property rights which includes land which holds your property .
 
deprave said:
So there will be some sort of grand conspiracy in which all evil people will band together and take over all 95% of the land currently owned by the U.S government in which they will be CAPABLE of inflicting a tyranical rule universally spread throughout accepted by all people which is somehow morally and ethically correct and not in violation of the non-agression principle. I just don't see the stars aligning so create such an intrinsically crafted conspiracy against all of mankind. oh wait there is that thing we call the state...:P

So unless you want to detail specifically what your suggesting to combat this grand conspiracy this conversation is at a dead end.
Click to expand...

Several days ago I was driving in Tijuana. I was near the line to get across the border and I was trying to get two lanes over in order to make a left turn at an intersection. The first of these two lanes, was full of cars waiting to cross the road to get toward the border waiting line. I must have waited 10 minutes to get into that lane and not a single motorist was willing to allow me to get in. One could almost say they were conspiring against me to keep me from getting where I was going. Our society is competitive.

Notice how you're the one who used the term slave first. Now you're the one who used the term conspiracy first. This is the bread and butter of "anarcho-capitalists", generate fear. These folks want to generate fear among the rest of us to keep us divided and competing, to keep us from joining together and kicking their bourgeoisie asses out of privilege. What next? You'll say I'm just jealous of the privileged class? No, they're a cancer.

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." ~Bertrand Russel

There can be no providence with out hope.
 
abandonconflict said:
Several days ago I was driving in Tijuana. I was near the line to get across the border and I was trying to get two lanes over in order to make a left turn at an intersection. The first of these two lanes, was full of cars waiting to cross the road to get toward the border waiting line. I must have waited 10 minutes to get into that lane and not a single motorist was willing to allow me to get in. One could almost say they were conspiring against me to keep me from getting where I was going. Our society is competitive.

Notice how you're the one who used the term slave first. Now you're the one who used the term conspiracy first. This is the bread and butter of "anarcho-capitalists", generate fear. These folks want to generate fear among the rest of us to keep us divided and competing, to keep us from joining together and kicking their bourgeoisie asses out of privilege. What next? You'll say I'm just jealous of the privileged class? No, they're a cancer.

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." ~Bertrand Russel

There can be no providence with out hope.
Click to expand...

Again so what do you suggest ? Where is the line drawn on property rights? I am being straight with you and your the one just dancing here. Lets take your suggestion and discuss how it can be practically applied.
 
deprave said:
Again so what do you suggest ? Where is the line drawn on property rights? I am being straight with you and your the one just dancing here.
Click to expand...

So you can only argue in defense of the ideology you prefer, but when you run out of arguments, you resort to fear mongering. When that fails, you ask me to define my ideology by saying I am dancing when I have stayed true to the title of the thread from the beginning.

Why is the burden mine to educate you on a viable system? I know enough about your ideology to back you into a corner, then you want to turn the tables and try to put me into defensive? You're the one dancing kiddo.

Anarcho-capitalism is voluntaryism is feudalism.
 
abandonconflict said:
So you can only argue in defense of the ideology you prefer, but when you run out of arguments, you resort to fear mongering. When that fails, you ask me to define my ideology by saying I am dancing when I have stayed true to the title of the thread from the beginning.

Why is the burden mine to educate you on a viable system? I know enough about your ideology to back you into a corner, then you want to turn the tables and try to put me into defensive? You're the one dancing kiddo.

Anarcho-capitalism is voluntaryism is feudalism.
Click to expand...

You can't explain where the line in property rights should be drawn. I am not asking much, think you got it backwards who is backed into the corner here. Yes all you can do is dance around instead of answer a simple question and continue the discussion, yet another dead end conversation with you where you pretend you are being open minded, I would like to discuss property rights with you because this is a discussion that you brought up but you won't have it. Voluntarism is clearly not feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.)
 
deprave said:
You can't explain where the line in property rights should be drawn. I am not asking much, think you got it backwards who is backed into the corner here. Yes all you can do is dance around instead of answer a simple question and continue the discussion, yet another dead end conversation with you where you pretend you are being open minded, I would like to discuss property rights with you because this is a discussion that you brought up but you won't have it. Voluntarism is clearly not feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.)
Click to expand...

You're asking me to define or declare property rights. I'm not pushing anything. I'm challenging models, not selling anything.

Feudalism was ... a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour...Sounds exactly like Voluntaryism.
 
abandonconflict said:
You're asking me to define or declare property rights. I'm not pushing anything. I'm challenging models, not selling anything.

Feudalism was ... a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour...Sounds exactly like Voluntaryism.
Click to expand...
You're asking me to define or declare property rights. I'm not pushing anything. I'm challenging models, not selling anything.
Yes your selling social anarchism, I thought this was a discussion on Voluntarism(or whatever you want to call it) vs Social Anarchy (or whatever you want to call it). At least that's how it started. Now your refusing to discuss the details of property rights.

Feudalism was ... a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour...Sounds exactly like Voluntaryism.
Its not.
 
abandonconflict said:
I agree. I wouldn't call it a sticking point, I would call it a point that needs to be focused upon in order to progress. Differentiate private property from personal property. Land is not personal property.

Take note of the fact that one must despise the people around themselves in order to wish to own personal land and deprive others of the right to it. He then says, "you can't force me to join some commune". This language is extremely hateful, it is saying that you just want to be alone, separate from the human race, that this is the only way to be happy. The real theft, is when one guy says, "fuck the tribe, I'm going to go over here, and take this land, and nobody may trespass on it."

If someone is truly trying to steal the sustenance that you and your ilk labor and toil the land in order to provide, or burn your crops, it is a community that will protect you. At the very heart of capitalism is greed, for greed is rewarded by it. The individual is all that is important, other people are then seen as somehow representative of theft. Join the human race.
542494_10151341019997381_629552744_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Challenged.

314789_439589966112476_1614528553_n.jpg
 
Differentiate private property from personal property.


And...Go on? Lets discuss this....This is what I am trying to do but you danced around it.
 
Now go ahead and try to change the subject from anarchocapitalism/voluntaryism/feudalism to what ever you want to say I'm selling.

By the way, I'm not selling, I'm challenging.
 
abandonconflict said:
means

of

production

and

vital

finite

natural

resources
Click to expand...

Common Property in anarcho capatilism pdf said:
The assumption that
all property would be privately owned in anarcho-capitalism is not
justified because property can come to be owned in common, as will
be explained below, and libertarian ethics would not allow the private
appropriation of such common property. This paper describes
the origins of common property in anarcho-capitalism.
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Kgbds-jR9EtoWJw&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aWc&cad=rja

Common property exist in anarcho-capitilism, its not some fedual system of land bearers with serfs, it certainly doesn't violently enslave people. The entire thing is a good read to explain in detail but as I summarized earlier the above exerpt covers the primary reason.
How can common property come to be in anarcho capitilism:
The key point is that once property comes to be used in common,
if it were to be appropriated by a single individual or even by
a group of frequent users, that would deprive other users of what
had become their right to access the common property. Common
ownership would arise because when the property was unowned,
many people accessed the property, but without combining their
labor with the property in a way that conveyed private ownership.
Once common ownership is established, no individual or group
has the right to deprive others of access to it. The fact that some
people use the thoroughfare more than others, or that some people
own property in closer proximity to the common property than others,
is insufficient to deprive others of their right to access the common
property.
Click to expand...


As I wrote earlier this is a violation of non-agression principle and libertarian ethics when the ownership of property is harmful to others. Just like the monopoly thing, if its not hurting others than why do you have a problem with it?


So as I wrote again...Your right...Land is not something anyone owns but if your stuff is there and YOUR labor created that stuff well than its your personal property. If I am not using the chunk of land outside my bedroom window it doesn't mean you can erect a shitter there.

Social anarchy doesn't adress this or property rigght in detail, thus why you can't explain where the line should be drawn in any level of detail. In anarcho capitalism it is addressed by every philospher from Rothbard, Friedman, Spooner, to Benson and more.
 
deprave said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Kgbds-jR9EtoWJw&bvm=bv.41524429,d.aWc&cad=rja

Common property exist in anarcho-capitilism, its not some fedual system of land bearers with serfs, it certainly doesn't violently enslave people. The entire thing is a good read to explain in detail but as I summarized earlier the above exerpt covers the primary reason.
How can common property come to be in anarcho capitilism:



As I wrote earlier this is a violation of non-agression principle and libertarian ethics when the ownership of property is harmful to others. Just like the monopoly thing, if its not hurting others than why do you have a problem with it?


So as I wrote again...Your right...Land is not something anyone owns but if your stuff is there and YOUR labor created that stuff well than its your personal property. If I am not using the chunk of land outside my bedroom window it doesn't mean you can erect a shitter there.
Click to expand...

I have read Holcombe's paper, you're pasting very selectively from a tenuous theoretical source which is stating that "free market" motives can do better what government does. You are using this as your source to insist that property held in commons is a concept compatible with anarchocapitalism. This paper describes how they can come to be, not how they could be controlled and maintained and this is very telling. They cannot. They are simply consolidated and absorbed and then passed in heredity.

Your shitter outside the window argument is a strawboy. We both know that is a dick move that no system, except maybe Rome would have tolerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stawawager
decarboxylation?
Replies
10
Views
207
stawawager
stawawager
Back
Top