Anarchism and its variants.

[an anarchist]

@Heyo @syo
I want to discuss anarchism and it’s variations, I welcome you guys to participate in this discussion.

1. What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political system in which there is no state I.e. government. It is not the absence of law and order as many presume, rather, it is the absence of rulers.
In the most broad sense, a state of anarchism exists among the countries of the world. There is no ruler that rules over the collective countries, so in a way the states paradoxically exist in an anarchist system amongst themselves.

2. What kind of anarchist are you?
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Ancap theory revolves around the theory of private property rights. An ancap society would be one where everything: goods, services, and property are privatized. The free market is the governing force in such a society based on voluntary exchanges.

3. What is your theory of property?
Property can only be rightfully attained in two ways: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only two conflict free ways to attain resources. With original appropriation, there are no valid competing claims to an object if you are the first person to chance upon it. Suppose you find gold. Once you mix your labor with it, through mining it, it is rightfully your property, as you have transformed it with your labor. The second way, through voluntary exchange, is necessarily conflict free, because both parties are voluntarily participating in the exchange.

4. What is the state?
Suppose a group of bandits and marauders got a bright idea one day. Instead of pillaging and murdering their victims, what if they allowed their victims to live and produce wealth, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting an annual tribute? The bandit chieftain can declare himself “the rightful ruler of the sovereign and independent government of (victims territory)”. If the bandit chieftain and his men have the force to maintain this rule, lo and behold! A new country has joined the family of nations. This is what a state is to me, a group of bandits who simply declare themselves to be legitimate.
Another way to put it, a state is an organization which has a monopoly on violence in a given territorial region. They have the right to exact tribute (taxes) and enforce their will, no matter how immoral it may be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Heyo @syo
I want to discuss anarchism and it’s variations, I welcome you guys to participate in this discussion.

1. What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political system in which there is no state I.e. government. It is not the absence of law and order as many presume, rather, it is the absence of rulers.
In the most broad sense, a state of anarchism exists among the countries of the world. There is no ruler that rules over the collective countries, so in a way the states paradoxically exist in an anarchist system amongst themselves.

2. What kind of anarchist are you?
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Ancap theory revolves around the theory of private property rights. An ancap society would be one where everything: goods, services, and property are privatized. The free market is the governing force in such a society based on voluntary exchanges.

3. What is your theory of property?
Property can only be rightfully attained in two ways: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only two conflict free ways to attain resources. With original appropriation, there are no valid competing claims to an object if you are the first person to chance upon it. Suppose you find gold. Once you mix your labor with it, through mining it, it is rightfully your property, as you have transformed it with your labor. The second way, through voluntary exchange, is necessarily conflict free, because both parties are voluntarily participating in the exchange.

4. What is the state?
Suppose a group of bandits and marauders got a bright idea one day. Instead of pillaging and murdering their victims, what if they allowed their victims to live and produce wealth, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting an annual tribute? The bandit chieftain can declare himself “the rightful ruler of the sovereign and independent government of (victims territory)”. If the bandit chieftain and his men have the force to maintain this rule, lo and behold! A new country has joined the family of nations. This is what a state is to me, a group of bandits who simply declare themselves to be legitimate.
Another way to put it, a state is an organization which has a monopoly on violence in a given territorial region. They have the right to exact tribute (taxes) and enforce their will, no matter how immoral it may be.

Yeah, this is a waste of time.
But here is a variant of property rights.
I own my land. I find a newborn on my land. Since it doesn't own any land and can't work, it has no right to be in the world. So it is thrown in jail for violating my property rights.

Then there is the problem of common resources. I own a part of a river, So I use the freshwater for my production and sent the polluted water down stream. Then it is not my problem as I don't own the water now.

Then there is the problem of actual law enforcement. It has to be private police and courts, but there are several ones. So to stop them from infighting you need in effect a meta-police and courts. Who pays for that and who controls that and stop them from becoming a de facto state.

Yeah, there are even more problems, but here is how it is going to go. You are not really going to address it and in effect ignore it. Then some time will pass and we do the same dance again.
Now how smart is that?

 

[Altfish]

@Heyo @syo
I want to discuss anarchism and it’s variations, I welcome you guys to participate in this discussion.

1. What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a political system in which there is no state I.e. government. It is not the absence of law and order as many presume, rather, it is the absence of rulers.
In the most broad sense, a state of anarchism exists among the countries of the world. There is no ruler that rules over the collective countries, so in a way the states paradoxically exist in an anarchist system amongst themselves.

2. What kind of anarchist are you?
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Ancap theory revolves around the theory of private property rights. An ancap society would be one where everything: goods, services, and property are privatized. The free market is the governing force in such a society based on voluntary exchanges.

3. What is your theory of property?
Property can only be rightfully attained in two ways: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only two conflict free ways to attain resources. With original appropriation, there are no valid competing claims to an object if you are the first person to chance upon it. Suppose you find gold. Once you mix your labor with it, through mining it, it is rightfully your property, as you have transformed it with your labor. The second way, through voluntary exchange, is necessarily conflict free, because both parties are voluntarily participating in the exchange.

4. What is the state?
Suppose a group of bandits and marauders got a bright idea one day. Instead of pillaging and murdering their victims, what if they allowed their victims to live and produce wealth, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting an annual tribute? The bandit chieftain can declare himself “the rightful ruler of the sovereign and independent government of (victims territory)”. If the bandit chieftain and his men have the force to maintain this rule, lo and behold! A new country has joined the family of nations. This is what a state is to me, a group of bandits who simply declare themselves to be legitimate.
Another way to put it, a state is an organization which has a monopoly on violence in a given territorial region. They have the right to exact tribute (taxes) and enforce their will, no matter how immoral it may be.

Who builds your roads?
When the poor revolt against this system, who has built the gaols that you throw them in? Who funds the police?
How does a child born into a poor, starving family climb the ladder?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who builds your roads?
When the poor revolt against this system, who has built the gaols that you throw them in? Who funds the police?
How does a child born into a poor, starving family climb the ladder?

What happens if a majority of the workers simply go on sit down strike and demand a new constitution?

 

[an anarchist]

Yeah, this is a waste of time.

For you maybe. I’m interested in other anarchists point of views, so why don’t you use your time wisely elsewhere so I don’t waste it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For you maybe. I’m interested in other anarchists point of views, so why don’t you use your time wisely elsewhere so I don’t waste it.

Well, I used to be an anarchist and I still am. I am just a different kind of realist about what that means in practice to get there.
So I am a part of it.

 

[Heyo]

2. What kind of anarchist are you?
I am an anarcho-capitalist. Ancap theory revolves around the theory of private property rights. An ancap society would be one where everything: goods, services, and property are privatized. The free market is the governing force in such a society based on voluntary exchanges.

My position is best described as anarcho-syndicalism.

3. What is your theory of property?
Property can only be rightfully attained in two ways: original appropriation and voluntary exchange. These are the only two conflict free ways to attain resources. With original appropriation, there are no valid competing claims to an object if you are the first person to chance upon it. Suppose you find gold. Once you mix your labor with it, through mining it, it is rightfully your property, as you have transformed it with your labor. The second way, through voluntary exchange, is necessarily conflict free, because both parties are voluntarily participating in the exchange.

"Property is theft." - Proudhon
Appropriation leads necessarily to conflict for all resources which aren't infinite. This is especially true for essential things like land, water and air. As @mikkel_the_dane already pointed out, you can't own part of a river and pollute it because the people downstream wouldn't like that.
Thus all property should be commonly administered, ideally commonly worked.
A non natural resource that shouldn't be in private hands are means of production. Wage slavery is just slavery and a boss is just a ruler on a smaller property than a country. All work should be done communally and the fruits should be shared "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Marx (though this idea was already there, this is just the most popular formulation).

As I stated above, conflict arises over limited resources. With the idea of a post scarcity economy
anarchism becomes much more viable, maybe even natural to such a society.

 

[an anarchist]

Who builds your roads?

The people who use the roads, it’s quite simple really. Extorting a populace is not necessary to pave a flat surface. There could be private road providers who would have a vested interest in connecting businesses and communities.
A state, since it has a monopoly on roads, has no pricing mechanism for it to determine the most efficient way to build the roads. This problem isn’t simply contained in infrastructure, every service that the state has monopolized it has no means to determine consumer preference. So, the quality is inherently poorer.

 

[an anarchist]

Well, I used to be an anarchist and I still am. I am just a different kind of realist about what that means in practice to get there.
So I am a part of it.

Ok, sorry I just got a little salty that you started off the conversation asserting that it’s a waste of time, my apologies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, sorry I just got a little salty that you started off the conversation asserting that it’s a waste of time, my apologies.

Well, I have made comments before in some of your other threads and in this and you haven't really including now addressed them.
Start by listening to @Heyo

 

[Altfish]

The people who use the roads, it’s quite simple really. Extorting a populace is not necessary to pave a flat surface. There could be private road providers who would have a vested interest in connecting businesses and communities.
A state, since it has a monopoly on roads, has no pricing mechanism for it to determine the most efficient way to build the roads. This problem isn’t simply contained in infrastructure, every service that the state has monopolized it has no means to determine consumer preference. So, the quality is inherently poorer.

If the specification is correct, the quality is the same whether funded and built by the private sector or government,

 

[an anarchist]

Then there is the problem of common resources. I own a part of a river, So I use the freshwater for my production and sent the polluted water down stream. Then it is not my problem as I don't own the water now.

Isn’t privatization of the river the best way to protect it?
The tragedy of the commons states that a collective resource won’t be taken care of as well by its users. If the river is common property, then one does not have a selfish motivation to maintain it. If the river is privatized, the private owner would have every right and motivation to maintain the quality of his water. If he obtained property rights to a part of the river, and the water is not polluted, he has every right to maintain its cleanliness. However, if he bought the property when it was already polluted, then he bought polluted property. But someone does not have the right to go upstream and pollute his private river. That physically changes the nature of the property, and is a violation of the Non aggression principle.
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn’t privatization of the river the best way to protect it?
The tragedy of the commons states that a collective resource won’t be taken care of as well by its users. If the river is common property, then one does not have a selfish motivation to maintain it. If the river is privatized, the private owner would have every right and motivation to maintain the quality of his water. If he obtained property rights to a part of the river, and the water is not polluted, he has every right to maintain its cleanliness. However, if he bought the property when it was already polluted, then he bought polluted property. But someone does not have the right to go upstream and pollute his private river. That physically changes the nature of the property, and is a violation of the Non aggression principle.
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

There are 2 commons. Common land and common resources like air and water and the critters living there. So by whom and how is the bold enforced?
Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The people who use the roads, it’s quite simple really. Extorting a populace is not necessary to pave a flat surface. There could be private road providers who would have a vested interest in connecting businesses and communities.
A state, since it has a monopoly on roads, has no pricing mechanism for it to determine the most efficient way to build the roads. This problem isn’t simply contained in infrastructure, every service that the state has monopolized it has no means to determine consumer preference. So, the quality is inherently poorer.

I've lived in a part of the world where this type of road building occurred, and indeed worked for the timber company that built those roads. It was part of our contract with the local communities to work the rainforest.

I don't want to say it's the modern equivalent of giving people shiny beads for tracts of land, but...

You appear to be assuming that those who need to use a road are capable of building a road. In practise, these communities couldn't build roads that sustained vehicular traffic. So we built them in exchange for resources. Fair, right?

Well...maybe not. We were taking old growth timber. It's not effectively a renewable. And we were building roads with no maintenance plan or funding outside our lease period, which the locals would be unable to maintain. And we were building them to a spec which required expensive vehicles (let's just say Land Cruisers to keep it simple) to effectively use.

But the state wasn't involved.

 

[Heyo]

The tragedy of the commons states that a collective resource won’t be taken care of as well by its users.

That is not what the tragedy of the commons states.

 

[Altfish]

Isn’t privatization of the river the best way to protect it?
The tragedy of the commons states that a collective resource won’t be taken care of as well by its users. If the river is common property, then one does not have a selfish motivation to maintain it. If the river is privatized, the private owner would have every right and motivation to maintain the quality of his water. If he obtained property rights to a part of the river, and the water is not polluted, he has every right to maintain its cleanliness. However, if he bought the property when it was already polluted, then he bought polluted property. But someone does not have the right to go upstream and pollute his private river. That physically changes the nature of the property, and is a violation of the Non aggression principle.
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

Unless the private owner has a manufacturing process on the river that produces toxic waste; what better vehicle to get rid of it that ditch it in the river.

 

[an anarchist]

That is not what the tragedy of the commons states.

I was in the ballpark, no? I see where I went wrong. I was using the characterization from the book I’m reading, wiki describes it differently.
From your link
In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action

 

[Heyo]

I was in the ballpark, no? I see where I went wrong. I was using the characterization from the book I’m reading, wiki describes it differently.
From your link
In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action

Yep, the problem is the "open access", unregulated and unlimited. (It is basically appropriation of the resources without the appropriation of the land.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was in the ballpark, no? I see where I went wrong. I was using the characterization from the book I’m reading, wiki describes it differently.
From your link
In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action

So who stops that and how? For the second time I ask that. Now try to answer it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was in the ballpark, no? I see where I went wrong. I was using the characterization from the book I’m reading, wiki describes it differently.
From your link
In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,[1][2] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action

So, staying on this topic, the two simplistic choices you have in avoiding unregulated common usage (which is where the problem can lie, if not always) are to privatise or establish governmental oversight.

Accepting you're going with privatisation as the 'correct' path, how do you avoid the tragedy of the commons simply becoming the risk of individual self interest destroying the resource, or alternative uses and applications of it?

This isn't a small problem,but a fundamental one.