How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

abandonconflict said:
Government also protects private property. Privately owned and consolidated vital finite natural resources passed in heredity create a 'noble' class that is equally responsible for limiting "free markets". Anarchocapitalism/voluntaryism enshrine this private ownership of what is rightfully common heritage of humanity. Giving this owning class permission, impetus and precedent to employ private armies to defend said ownership is not a solution, it is trading corrupt democracy for monarchy.

Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron like military intelligence, jumbo shrimp and deregulation law.
Click to expand...

Government protects private property? Maybe....Sometimes. That is not a given, in fact how can an institution that places an automatic lien on your income, your house and your decisions about your own body be said to "protect" private property? It seems like they protect SOME private property, but far more often TAKE private property, no?
 
Rob Roy said:
Government protects private property? Maybe....Sometimes. That is not a given, in fact how can an institution that places an automatic lien on your income, your house and your decisions about your own body be said to "protect" private property? It seems like they protect SOME private property, but far more often TAKE private property, no?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. They protect it for a very small few, from the rest of us.
 
abandonconflict said:
Government also protects private property. Privately owned and consolidated vital finite natural resources passed in heredity create a 'noble' class that is equally responsible for limiting "free markets". Anarchocapitalism/voluntaryism enshrine this private ownership of what is rightfully common heritage of humanity. Giving this owning class permission, impetus and precedent to employ private armies to defend said ownership is not a solution, it is trading corrupt democracy for monarchy.

Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron like military intelligence, jumbo shrimp and deregulation law.
Click to expand...

Think I need to elaborate on this a bit more, the problem volunatrist/anarcho-capitilist and I; have with anarcho-communism/left libertarianism/etc... Is that it doesn't advocate for liberty for everyone uniformely because of this property rights argument. If it weren't for the goverment only less than 5% of the land is actually occupied by private property owners, so there would be plenty of land for everyone, plenty of room to have your hippie communes, sharing experiments, etc...(Which we have absolutely no problem with, We view it as a business plan) but when you enforce this on everyone, when you say THIS IS HOW SOCIETY SHOULD BE this is clearly a violation of ethics and of the non-agression principle because you are forcing things on others by violent force.

Now something you can appreciate I am sure, your argument is that land ownership is against the non-aggression principle, I wrote why its not above but the universal principle that counters that with property ownership is that what you create is yours and anyone who trys to take that from you is stealing, for example if you build your house, farm a crop, etc...then not one person has the moral right to take this from you just as they don't have the right to take your eyeball.
 
deprave said:
Think I need to elaborate on this a bit more, the problem volunatrist/anarcho-capitilist and I; have with anarcho-communism/left libertarianism/etc... Is that it doesn't advocate for liberty for everyone uniformely because of this property rights argument. If it weren't for the goverment only less than 5% of the land is actually occupied by private property owners, so there would be plenty of land for everyone, plenty of room to have your hippie communes, sharing experiments, etc...(Which we have absolutely no problem with, We view it as a business plan) but when you enforce this on everyone, when you say THIS IS HOW SOCIETY SHOULD BE this is clearly a violation of ethics and of the non-agression principle because you are forcing things on others by violent force.

Now something you can appreciate I am sure, your argument is that land ownership is against the non-aggression principle, I wrote why its not above but the universal principle that counters that with property ownership is that what you create is yours and anyone who trys to take that from you is stealing, for example if you build your house, farm a crop, etc...then not one person has the moral right to take this from you just as they don't have the right to take your eyeball.
Click to expand...


Would it be to pragmatic to make a distinction between land you work and throwing up a fence around the entire US and saying you own it?
 
So to clarify further the moral violation is STEALING, Voluntarism is based completely on morals and ethics. I.E. *Stealing, Killing(except in self defense depending on the situation that is obviously highly debated and for another subject), Rape, etc... Is wrong, to use an even broader stroke. Anything that does harm to another person or persons is wrong, the difference being that in voluntarism and similar political philosophies doesn't make exclusions/exceptions for any one person, group of people, object, etc... doing harm to others is just plain wrong no matter how you shake it. (with great emphasis on NEVER making exceptions for anyone or anything)
 
TroncoChe said:
Would it be to pragmatic to make a distinction between land you work and throwing up a fence around the entire US and saying you own it?
Click to expand...
ofcourse its the fruits of your labor, something that didn't exist if it weren't for you, so that fence sure that would be your fence since you built it but of course not everything within that fence. so that being said as long as the fence isn't harming others or my wishes aren't harming others you should respect my property. Of course in this example its highly likely that its doing harm to others.

The difference being that other political philosophies say its okay regardless, its your fence, and especially if your a magical "government" with a magical blue suit or rich corporation capable of bribing the magical government, in that case your immune to morals and you can do whatever you damn well please :P

Then along comes anarcho-communism/social anarchism/some forms of left libertarianism that says its everyone fence, tralalala, well thats just another form of this "Magical Governement" saying they are magically doing what is in societies "best interest" and if you don't like it you can die lol
 
deprave said:
Think I need to elaborate on this a bit more, the problem volunatrist/anarcho-capitilist and I; have with anarcho-communism/left libertarianism/etc... Is that it doesn't advocate for liberty for everyone uniformely because of this property rights argument. If it weren't for the goverment only less than 5% of the land is actually occupied by private property owners, so there would be plenty of land for everyone, plenty of room to have your hippie communes, sharing experiments, etc...(Which we have absolutely no problem with, We view it as a business plan) but when you enforce this on everyone, when you say THIS IS HOW SOCIETY SHOULD BE this is clearly a violation of ethics and of the non-agression principle because you are forcing things on others by violent force.

Now something you can appreciate I am sure, your argument is that land ownership is against the non-aggression principle, I wrote why its not above but the universal principle that counters that with property ownership is that what you create is yours and anyone who trys to take that from you is stealing, for example if you build your house, farm a crop, etc...then not one person has the moral right to take this from you just as they don't have the right to take your eyeball.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is crap. It is a strawman to say "someone would enforce hippie communes." If that is the problem that feudalism has with anarchy, I think you need to look up the word Hierarchy and then look up the word Anarchy. To then spew percentage statistics about land ownership is also crap. The system of feudalism will reward empire builders consolidating private ownership.
73307_4279784197602_946514867_n.jpg
 
abandonconflict said:
The first paragraph is crap. It is a strawman to say "someone would enforce hippie communes." If that is the problem that feudalism has with anarchy, I think you need to look up the word Hierarchy and then look up the word Anarchy. To then spew percentage statistics about land ownership is also crap. The system of feudalism will reward empire builders consolidating private ownership.
73307_4279784197602_946514867_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Your saying that property sharing should be enforced which is exactly what I wrote, So now your going on to say that property rights will "reward empire builders consolidating private ownership. "

First this doesn't mean that because I own a property that I get to violate the non-aggression principle and morals within it so this is why your argument is fallacious primarily.

Second, Please refer to my argument at the begining of this thread which I beleive I won and you agreed with me regarding monopolies in a free market, The same thing applies to land.
 
To compare it to feudalism or say that its a heirichal form of society is also wrong. If I own a property I don't own the people within it and their property this is a violation of the non-aggression principle. What your proposing is more akin to feudalism and it is a herichal society in disguise.
 
deprave said:
To compare it to feudalism or say that its a heirichal form of society is also wrong. If I own a property I don't own the people within it and their property this is a violation of the non-aggression principle. What your proposing is more akin to feudalism and it is a herichal society in disguise.
Click to expand...

Live not for what you can acquire, live for what you can leave behind.

Broski, it is hierarchical, and owning property requires "enforcement". Occupy it.

Voluntaryism enshrines private ownership of land as a right. This private ownership is passed in heredity. The owner can employ private armies and consolidate ownership over ever growing property. It isn't his. It doesn't belong to only his children. It is common heritage of humanity. It arebelongtous.

Sure, you don't own the people on it, but you own it, and they occupy it, that may not make them chattel, but certainly serfs. You own the product of the land which sustains them. You are the lord of a serfdom. This is voluntaryism. This is feudalism.
 
abandonconflict said:
Private property, keep out!
mysore-palace-illuminated.jpg

I hate society. Let them eat cake.
Click to expand...


Is your body your private property? Do you own anything that others are not welcome to use unless you agree? Is it the IDEA of ownership or the AMOUNT of things a person owns that bothers you?
 
abandonconflict said:
Why do you hate society?
Click to expand...

I do not feel that theft is ever morally justified by anyone especialy by a 'group' who labels themselves as 'society' . This idea of collectivism is theft that is violently forced on certain people. If I grow a crop of marijuana nobody should be allowed to do what they want with it, If I build a house someone shouldn't be able to demolish it and build a highway over it. Its simple ethics, the idea that there is this 'society' that 'collectively agrees what is right and what is wrong and therefore they are allowed to make certain exceptions is a wolf in sheeps clothing, its a government, which creates victims and thrives on violence, an entity with magical properties to violate the same moral rules they punish us for.

Did the jews do the right thing by giving up their property to the nazis because 'society' deemed it in their interest? Tell me then, just when is stealing okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

stawawager
decarboxylation?
Replies
10
Views
205
stawawager
stawawager
Back
Top