Anarchism and its variants.

[an anarchist]

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.

A private individual would have the right to enforce his property rights if they are being violated.
In ancapistan, there would be access to private arbiters and enforcers, as you brought up.

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.

The market is what would regulate the private law. A meta-police is not inevitable. Is it safe to assume that consumers would desire a “moral” private arbiter and enforcement agency? I think so. If an agency is practicing immorally, I think that would open up the market to more moral private law agencies, and consumers would funnel resources to them. So that’s who would pay for it. Through resource allocation, consumers do have immense influence on the services. If a private agency decided that they wanted to become a de facto state, every other agency as well as the consumers would have the motivation to oppose that. Through the market place, consumers can peacefully resist such an action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A private individual would have the right to enforce his property rights if they are being violated.
In ancapistan, there would be access to private arbiters and enforcers, as you brought up.

The market is what would regulate the private law. A meta-police is not inevitable. Is it safe to assume that consumers would desire a “moral” private arbiter and enforcement agency? I think so. If an agency is practicing immorally, I think that would open up the market to more moral private law agencies, and consumers would funnel resources to them. So that’s who would pay for it. Through resource allocation, consumers do have immense influence on the services. If a private agency decided that they wanted to become a de facto state, every other agency as well as the consumers would have the motivation to oppose that. Through the market place, consumers can peacefully resist such an action.

And what is the punishment for violating your rule of non-agression? And who carries that out?
And who pays the private arbiters and enforces and what rules do they follow?
What if I don't accept your choice of private arbiters and enforces and use other ones? They are a part of the marked and I shop differently than you. What rules do these 2 different companies follow and what if they can't agree? Then what?

 

[syo]

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

Thank you.
I will participate when I have more time soon.

 

[Brian2]

@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.

It doesn't matter much if you are an anarchist when you live in a place that is not anarchistic.

 

[Heyo]

It doesn't matter much if you are an anarchist when you live in a place that is not anarchistic.

For me, it does. Even though I don't see any wide scale anarchy any time soon, it is still a goal worth pursuing. Every step towards more liberty is a step towards anarchy.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I suppose you could look at it that way. A lot of states and empires have been formed that way. That being the case, a lot of other states were formed out of necessity, by mutual agreement among people who didn't like the idea of "bandit rule." But they needed to marshal their resources and manpower to build the apparatus and wherewithal to defend themselves from bandit hoards and armies from other lands. The "state" exists largely as a necessary organizing function.

The main reason why the state, as we know it today, became so powerful was because society itself grew more and more complex with industrialism, along with colonization, global imperialism, nationalism, and the various wars that ensued. Some might say it was banditry on a planetary scale, and it took state-level, imperial power and centralization to make it happen. And if one country builds up a powerful state and military apparatus, other countries get nervous and decide they must do the same, out of necessity.

If not for bandits, we could have a stateless society. But since bandits exist, states must also exist.

If only we could find a way to get rid of all the bandits. But that's a bit of a pickle, since some of the bandits have nuclear weapons.

So, I guess we're stuck having a state for a while longer. But we should at least get better organized. Too many loonies and morons in government. A lot of voters aren't too bright either, so it's not too surprising about who they elect.

 

[Brian2]

For me, it does. Even though I don't see any wide scale anarchy any time soon, it is still a goal worth pursuing. Every step towards more liberty is a step towards anarchy.

I suppose working towards an ideal is a good thing. You would need to do it on more than one front at a time of course. Just more liberty could turn people away from anarchy before it is given a chance. Once people start using the liberty for their own evil purposes then others will make more laws.

 

[Heyo]

I suppose working towards an ideal is a good thing. You would need to do it on more than one front at a time of course. Just more liberty could turn people away from anarchy before it is given a chance. Once people start using the liberty for their own evil purposes then others will make more laws.

There is no lasting liberty without responsibility.

 

[Brian2]

There is no lasting liberty without responsibility.

No doubt best achieved through loving others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No doubt best achieved through loving others.

Yeah, all forms including "I love you, so I must punish you" to "hippie love" to accepting LGBTQ+. I know, love comes in many forms, but mine is the correct one.

 

[syo]

1. What is anarchism?

The absense of representatives.

2. What kind of anarchist are you?

A nihilist one.

3. What is your theory of property?

Property that can't be carried around, binds you down.

4. What is the state?

State, huh? I don't know. You have to search for one, if it exists. If it isn't nihilistic, kill it.

 

[an anarchist]

And what is the punishment for violating your rule of non-agression? And who carries that out?
And who pays the private arbiters and enforces and what rules do they follow?
What if I don't accept your choice of private arbiters and enforces and use other ones? They are a part of the marked and I shop differently than you. What rules do these 2 different companies follow and what if they can't agree? Then what?

Sorry mikkel, my phone service got cut out in the middle of our conversation so I can only respond when I have wifi, which is only occasionally.

You raise good questions. Let's take a step back real quick.

Ancapistan exists in hypotheticals, right? So I can try to provide some hypotheticals of how private law might work and be funded (which I will try to). But it's unknown how it would work exactly. An ancap holds the power of the free market in very high regard. I see the free market as the greatest source of innovation. There would be innovations in the whole structure of every economic sector if government were to be removed. I believe, in such an environment, eventually, consumer preferences would lead to an equilibrium on the inner workings of private law and order. Through spontaneous voluntary exchange, the marketplace would be molded around consumer preferences. This is due to the markets pricing mechanism. Through viewing profit/loss, businesses (including private law agencies) know how to allocate their resources to meet consumer wants and needs.
Consumers would want the NAP not to be violated, it is same to assume. So, consumers would funnel resources into what is society's perceived "moral' law agency, one that doesn't violate the NAP. It's not perfect, as people aren't perfect, but the market would figure out all these details you are rightfully worried about.

While I try to figure out some hypotheticals, (which I think I've gone over a bit with you in another thread), can you explain to me what kind of anarchist are you? Also, can you answer some of the questions you posed to me when it comes to your version of anarchism?

Ancapistan may seem unrealistic, but it is anarchist nonetheless. Some people say that the free market would result in defacto states, but I disagree. At any rate, I haven't seen another system which doesn't result in a state. I have to look into Anarcho syndicalism now and discuss it with @Heyo . It's a lot to wrap my head around, these different versions of anarchism. Does syndicalism result in a state? And again, what exactly is a state is disagreed upon. I'll start discussing syndicalism with u Heyo when I have more time again, in the meantime I'll think about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry mikkel, my phone service got cut out in the middle of our conversation so I can only respond when I have wifi, which is only occasionally.

You raise good questions. Let's take a step back real quick.

Ancapistan exists in hypotheticals, right? So I can try to provide some hypotheticals of how private law might work and be funded (which I will try to). But it's unknown how it would work exactly. An ancap holds the power of the free market in very high regard. I see the free market as the greatest source of innovation. There would be innovations in the whole structure of every economic sector if government were to be removed. I believe, in such an environment, eventually, consumer preferences would lead to an equilibrium on the inner workings of private law and order. Through spontaneous voluntary exchange, the marketplace would be molded around consumer preferences. This is due to the markets pricing mechanism. Through viewing profit/loss, businesses (including private law agencies) know how to allocate their resources to meet consumer wants and needs.
Consumers would want the NAP not to be violated, it is same to assume. So, consumers would funnel resources into what is society's perceived "moral' law agency, one that doesn't violate the NAP. It's not perfect, as people aren't perfect, but the market would figure out all these details you are rightfully worried about.

While I try to figure out some hypotheticals, (which I think I've gone over a bit with you in another thread), can you explain to me what kind of anarchist are you? Also, can you answer some of the questions you posed to me when it comes to your version of anarchism?

Ancapistan may seem unrealistic, but it is anarchist nonetheless. Some people say that the free market would result in defacto states, but I disagree. At any rate, I haven't seen another system which doesn't result in a state. I have to look into Anarcho syndicalism now and discuss it with @Heyo . It's a lot to wrap my head around, these different versions of anarchism. Does syndicalism result in a state? And again, what exactly is a state is disagreed upon. I'll start discussing syndicalism with u Heyo when I have more time again, in the meantime I'll think about it.

Okay, we now have two blocks of companies in regards to the police and courts.
One is a group of cooperatives, where all members own the given cooperatives and have one vote each to elects, who runs the day to day business and further the members make the rules and all fund the costs.
The other are a group of shareholder companies, where the amounts of shares decide influences.

These 2 groups are at odds over a dispute over say water rights. How does the market solve it?

Please be concrete, because you claim the market can solve it. Then explain how the market actually solves it? Don't just say it will solve it, explain how?

 

[an anarchist]

Please be concrete, because you claim the market can solve it. Then explain how the market actually solves it? Don't just say it will solve it, explain how?

It's impossible to be concrete. The fact is that the methods of how it would work have not been discovered. They won't be discovered unless there is an economic environment in which innovation is allowed to be unrestrained.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's impossible to be concrete. The fact is that the methods of how it would work have not been discovered. They won't be discovered unless there is an economic environment in which innovation is allowed to be unrestrained.

So you don't know if it will work.

 

[an anarchist]

So you don't know if it will work.

Exactly
Edit: I read that wrong, as “so you don’t know how it will work”,
let me rephrase
It is an assumption that the market will spontaneously find solutions through unrestrained spontaneous voluntary exchange. Whether this exchange is “voluntary” is where I think some of the disagreement lies. I don’t view wage slavery as a thing, while a syndicalist does. I see working in the market and getting paid as voluntary, others see that as wage slavery.
the way anarcho capitalism proposes is moral, from this view point of view. There is no coerced exchange. We know the market isn’t perfect, but we trust it more than centralized control over economic sectors (a state)
Again, what kind of anarchist are you? Did you say you were a populist kind? I cant recall

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly
Edit: I read that wrong, as “so you don’t know how it will work”,
let me rephrase
It is an assumption that the market will spontaneously find solutions through unrestrained spontaneous voluntary exchange. Whether this exchange is “voluntary” is where I think some of the disagreement lies. I don’t view wage slavery as a thing, while a syndicalist does. I see working in the market and getting paid as voluntary, others see that as wage slavery.
the way anarcho capitalism proposes is moral, from this view point of view. There is no coerced exchange. We know the market isn’t perfect, but we trust it more than centralized control over economic sectors (a state)
Again, what kind of anarchist are you? Did you say you were a populist kind? I cant recall

Okay, there is more to the marked than your model.
You are missing that workers can organize in unions, that companies can be owned by workers and that consumers can organize as consumers. You have reduced the marked down to nothing but employers and workers and that in effect in your model workers are nothing but individuals. That is not the case. Just as capitalists can coordinatie in companies, so can workers and consumers.

I am a left anarchist in that I include that in the marked. That leads me in another direction than your model of just individuals.

 

[an anarchist]

Okay, there is more to the marked than your model.
You are missing that workers can organize in unions, that companies can be owned by workers and that consumers can organize as consumers. You have reduced the marked down to nothing but employers and workers and that in effect in your model workers are nothing but individuals. That is not the case. Just as capitalists can coordinatie in companies, so can workers and consumers.

I am a left anarchist in that I include that in the marked. That leads me in another direction than your model of just individuals.

I’m not opposed to those examples you listed above. Workers organizing together and forming unions is a way to ensure quality work conditions and pay in a free market environment. Any organization would be based on freedom of association. Do you suppose that unions would cease to exist in ancapistan? On the contrary, they would probably be very prevalent.
So where exactly do we disagree? You say resources should be commonly owned and administered, right? How exactly is this achieved?
A free market environment is based on freedom of associations. Is your viewpoint based on freedom of associations? Elaborate more on how your vision of anarchism is achieved. Perhaps your vision of unions i would see as a state.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not opposed to those examples you listed above. Workers organizing together and forming unions is a way to ensure quality work conditions and pay in a free market environment. Any organization would be based on freedom of association. Do you suppose that unions would cease to exist in ancapistan? On the contrary, they would probably be very prevalent.
So where exactly do we disagree? You say resources should be commonly owned and administered, right? How exactly is this achieved?
A free market environment is based on freedom of associations. Is your viewpoint based on freedom of associations? Elaborate more on how your vision of anarchism is achieved. Perhaps your vision of unions i would see as a state.

Here is a complex example.

We need a commons problem. Say the upland for a river. I.e. the territory where the water in the river comes from. We are now in science and different terrain types has different effects on the water level in the river.

Now a company own a large part of the upland to a river and in effect want to change the terrain type so there will be less water in the river.
But since you are not me, do you accept that can happen in the real world?

What follows depends on how you answer.

 

[an anarchist]

Here is a complex example.

We need a commons problem. Say the upland for a river. I.e. the territory where the water in the river comes from. We are now in science and different terrain types has different effects on the water level in the river.

Now a company own a large part of the upland to a river and in effect want to change the terrain type so there will be less water in the river.
But since you are not me, do you accept that can happen in the real world?

What follows depends on how you answer.

That can happen in the real world.

I would say that a company wouldn’t have the right to do that, even in ancapistan. Though the company would be altering their own private property, they would be in effect violating the NAP. Ones private property can be used freely, only as long as it doesn’t alter or violate someone’s else’s property without their consent. You asked before how this would be enforced. Perhaps it would be common practice for companies to agree to have associations with certain private arbiters who themselves have private watchdog agencies ensuring quality. The people downriver can then go to the private arbiter and present their case, or perhaps go to a private arbiter of their own choosing. If the arbiter rules that the territorial change is in fact a violation of a NAP, then the company would be obliged not to go through with their plans. If they chose to do so regardless, the market would probably punish them and they would lose associations with arbiters and watchdog agencies for example. And the people downriver have every right to prevent the violation of their private property rights. With a private arbiter ruling in their favor, they would have the backing of private defense insurance agencies and would have the means to protect their property. Just a theory on how it might work.

How exactly does your vision answer this problem?