The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

Limited Government Libertarian

75 (28.3%)

Minarchist

50 (18.9%)

Free Market Retributionist

33 (12.5%)

Free Market Reparationist

45 (17%)

Self Defense Libertarian

35 (13.2%)

Pacifist

9 (3.4%)

None of the Above

18 (6.8%)

Total Members Voted: 81

[MobileDigit]

the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.

The difference, which you always seem to fail to mention, is that the land owner claims first, or trades a claim with a previous land owner, while the state claims after other people alreadly have.

[BenTucker]

the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.

The difference, which you always seem to fail to mention, is that the land owner claims first, or trades a claim with a previous land owner, while the state claims after other people alreadly have.

that state recognizes someone's claim in the form of a privilege called a title backed by force.

if the landowner's claims the economic rent backed by force then it is nothing more than a tax imposed and thus no different in this respect from a state.

[mbd]

Ben, please define economic rent.

for simplicity purposes - unimproved land values that are socially created rather than individually created by the landowner's labor.

Forgive my ignorance. Socially created?

[BenTucker]

Forgive my ignorance. Socially created?

to be more exact - the unimproved land values are the result of:

1. natural opportunities
2. via the landowner's neighbors labor (positive externalities)
3. public infrastructure investments
4. rising demand via population increases

[MobileDigit]

The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.

[Highlander]

Brevity is the soul of wit, in a substantive discussion it is an indication of simplistic reasoning!

Simple reasoning is usually clear, and clear reasoning is usually correct.

I didn't say 'simple', did I?

[Highlander]

If humans are rational, then "governence" need not be with force, but can instead be with incentives.

But what do you mean by 'rational'?

Able to analyze cost versus benefit.

As I said, that is a big 'IF'!  Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?

Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?

Many people don't think this would occur in a big city, but without a government, who knows what could nonviolently fill the void. There might be also be Private Defense Agencies to help protect property. Criminals would know if they attempted to violate someone's rights, they could face instant death.

Would those deaths be nonviolent filler?

There is no logical reason to think that the basis of man is violence, instead of man being in violent situations.

You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history?  Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!

Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!

Incorrect, if the reasoning is not flawed, deduction is completely true.

You mean if the premises (axioms) aren't flawed, deduction is true?  Because 'reasoning' is reasoning, whatever the premise, right or wrong.

Have you heard of Gödel's proof?  Please read this excellent discussion on the limits of logic.  Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.

Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?

It is nonsense to claim that I owe you for something that I did not agree to.

So you reap the benefit of collective protection and don't want to pay up?  How is such a person dealt with in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia?

What exactly does this look like in reality?  How is it organized?  Who is in charge?

Competition will sort this out, with the best and most efficient businesses surviving. We cannot and should not act like a state and try to plan out how society should be organized, or how it will deal with its troubles.

What a pat answer.  "Competition" will sort it all out!  How nice and convenient!  I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal.  Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.

How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society!

Warlords will be driven out by the aforementioned solutions for criminals.

This would be another nonviolent driving out?  These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.

How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong?  Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable?

The strong will voluntarily support the weak, or the weak will support themselves. And yes they are, but if you rape a woman, and she has a beautiful child prodigy baby, does that make the crime any less a crime?

Can you point to stateless examples of this which prove a rule or only exceptions to the opposite rule?

I don't think I'm arguing a limited state because of prevention, rather as a deterrence.

If you deter, aren't you preventing?

Yes and no.  First a deterrent aims to prevent, but doesn't prevent outright, only in some or most cases.  It isn't TOTAL prevention.

And how do we achieve justice in Anarchy?

Private arbitration.

Pat.  Simplistic.  What if one party to arbitration decides they will not abide by the ruling?  How will it be enforced?

How can we be assured of evidentiary rules?

Competition will assure this, as it does for every other standardization issue.

Ah, the old 'competetion' panecea!

What if the accused doesn't recognize your court?

He will face an economic incentive to agree to a trial because if he does not, the court might tell a contract rating organization that this person does not recognize a legitimate court, and he will suffer from people not wanting to do business with him.

What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort?  Say a person drives their car into your house and refuses to pay damages?  How do you propose to extract just compensation for their actions?

What if the penalized by arbitration renegs upon his agreement to submit to the arbitor's rule?  What then?  Is force then justified?  And by whom?

Force is then justified if he agreed beforehand to be subject to force.

So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice? 

Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?

I do not understand your question.

Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.

Sure it can.  I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern".  So what is the answer?

[mbd]

The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.

Believe me, I'm well aware of Ben's methods. I'm intrigued by this though.

[BenTucker]

The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.

Believe me, I'm well aware of Ben's methods. I'm intrigued by this though.

prior to Locke's proviso there is no economic rent that attaches to locations - why would I pay someone to locate where he has choosen to locate if I can occupy another location that does not economically harm me (aka enough and as good has been left in common for me to homestead?)

[MobileDigit]

Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?

They aren't. But these people are no more than mere beasts, and would likely have a guardian who was capable of rationality.

Would those deaths be nonviolent filler?

The death of a person who violates rights is moral.

You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history?  Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!

You approach the theory of human action in an inaccurate way. Evidence cannot disprove theory, because of the innate complexity of evidence. Only theory can disprove theory. It may work with physics, but not when working with free will.

You mean if the premises (axioms) aren't flawed, deduction is true?  Because 'reasoning' is reasoning, whatever the premise, right or wrong.

Axioms cannot be flawed, or else they are not axioms.

Have you heard of Gödel's proof?  Please read this excellent discussion on the limits of logic.  Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.

In the end it all comes down to the logician's intuitive feeling of the truth.

So you reap the benefit of collective protection and don't want to pay up?

If you expect not to get my wealth then you will a devise a way of not spending resources on me.

How is such a person dealt with in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia?

Nonviolently.

What a pat answer.  "Competition" will sort it all out!  How nice and convenient!

Actually it's not at all. It's simply not possible to reliably anticipate what business organization will look like a free society. Anarchism is not a state, and so there is not a definable pattern of society. Asking me what I think anarcho-capitalism will look like and then attempting to poke holes in my logic does not prove anarcho-capitalism is untenable.

I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal.  Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.

I have already done this: economic incentives would replace the force the government is currently using.

This would be another nonviolent driving out?  These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.

I find it amazing that nearly every anti-anarcho-capitalist seems to say the same things.

Do you seriously believe that the government is stopping warlords? What about what happened in New Orleans: it was only after the gun-owning middle class was forced to leave that it degenerated into chaos.

Can you point to stateless examples of this which prove a rule or only exceptions to the opposite rule?

Charity. It is necessarily stateless because the state is not forcing people to do so.

Pat. Simplistic.

What an irritating fellow you are!

What if one party to arbitration decides they will not abide by the ruling?  How will it be enforced?

I already said that if it depends on what they previously agreed to when they agreed to the trial.

Ah, the old 'competetion' panecea!

Can you name one issue that a free market cannot solve? If not, it truly is a panacea!

What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort?

You're missing the point. I would not want to contract with a violent criminal, and if a contract rating organization said he was not agreeing on a trial for a legitimate offense, he would likely lose his job, and no reputable business would be willing to trade with him. Economic incentives.

So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice?

That's correct, and he would suffer economic hardship. Is a better solution to open Pandora's box and point a gun at him?

Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?

I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.

Sure it can.  I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern".  So what is the answer?

Power will be solely economic, and thus voluntary.

[Highlander]

Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?

They aren't. But these people are no more than mere beasts, and would likely have a guardian who was capable of rationality.

We could go at this for days, perhaps we should branch and argue about human nature. You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.

You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history?  Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!

You approach the theory of human action in an inaccurate way. Evidence cannot disprove theory, because of the innate complexity of evidence. Only theory can disprove theory. It may work with physics, but not when working with free will.

I don't disagree with you where apriori axiomatic deduction is concerned. I've read Human Action, Theory and History, Liberalism and related texts (I hold Mises as pre-eminent).  I'm a regular reader of Mises.org and am familiar with your position.  Again, I think your entire case is based on a flawed view of human nature, if written history (as imperfect as it is) and my own observational history is any guide.

Have you heard of Gödel's proof?  Please read this excellent discussion on the limits of logic.  Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.

In the end it all comes down to the logician's intuitive feeling of the truth.

Right.  We agree a great deal on this issue, at least it appears.  I call that intuitive feeling of the truth "faith".

What a pat answer.  "Competition" will sort it all out!  How nice and convenient!

Actually it's not at all. It's simply not possible to reliably anticipate what business organization will look like a free society. Anarchism is not a state, and so there is not a definable pattern of society. Asking me what I think anarcho-capitalism will look like and then attempting to poke holes in my logic does not prove anarcho-capitalism is untenable.

I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal.  Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.

I have already done this: economic incentives would replace the force the government is currently using.

That's really easy for you to say.  Again, I largely agree with you on principle.  I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.  Nor do I think it reasonable to expect the current crop of powerful men to give it up without violence. 

This would be another nonviolent driving out?  These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.

I find it amazing that nearly every anti-anarcho-capitalist seems to say the same things.

Do you seriously believe that the government is stopping warlords? What about what happened in New Orleans: it was only after the gun-owning middle class was forced to leave that it degenerated into chaos.

Please bear in mind I advocate limited government.  I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace.  However, those who do not must be dealt with.  That is reality.

Pat. Simplistic.

What an irritating fellow you are!

I apologize, Mobile, it was late and you are nothing, if not faithful to address every jot...

Ah, the old 'competition' panacea!

Can you name one issue that a free market cannot solve? If not, it truly is a panacea!

What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort?

You're missing the point. I would not want to contract with a violent criminal, and if a contract rating organization said he was not agreeing on a trial for a legitimate offense, he would likely lose his job, and no reputable business would be willing to trade with him. Economic incentives.

So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice?

That's correct, and he would suffer economic hardship. Is a better solution to open Pandora's box and point a gun at him?

Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?

I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.

Sure it can.  I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern".  So what is the answer?

Power will be solely economic, and thus voluntary.

Well, see above, I'm with you in spirit, I do believe in the power of consumer choice and do believe it is the best way to achieve a meritorious balance among people.  I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others.  It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies.  When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless.  Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.  This is no different from plain old fealty.

In closing, I fall back on Bastiat's observation of a collective right derived from individual rights.  I prefer the law over lawlessness, but justice before all.  When the state does more than act to protect individual rights, it is immoral and should be vigilantly held to that basic charge.

I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do?  Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?

[Evil Muppet]

Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit? 

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."  --Winston Churchill

[BenTucker]

Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit? 

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."  --Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill quotes:

"Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed geographical position – land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions."

"Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is the mother of all other monopolies."

"I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of land value taxation, and you know what a supporter I am of that policy."

[MobileDigit]

Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit?

He's on at least 4 different capitalist forums spouting his idiocy.

You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.

Arguing that humans are fundemantally violent by using examples in which the humans were in violent situations proves absolutely nothing. It's much more logical and consistant to argue that humans are rational; when faced with more to gain by using violence, violence is used, when faced with more to gain by using nonviolence, nonviolence is used.

Again, I think your entire case is based on a flawed view of human nature, if written history (as imperfect as it is) and my own observational history is any guide.

I believe we should take that to a new thread.

I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.

We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.

Nor do I think it reasonable to expect the current crop of powerful men to give it up without violence.

So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?

I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace.  However, those who do not must be dealt with.  That is reality.

I agree. However, being 'dealt with' does not require violence. If I initiated force, or refused to pay court costs, and an organization tracked my violations, and businesses would not hire me, wouldn't that be dealing with me? Wouldn't that make me seriously consider not being violent?

I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others.  It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies.  When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless.  Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.

Imagine there are 10 security forces and free entry into the security market in say, New Hampshire. If one becomes rogue, the others prevent it from extorting the populace. An added check is that most residents own firearms. Exactly how is this situation not solving the problem of people attempting to rule over others?

This is no different from plain old fealty.

If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral. What I am proposing is that you build a house and then you hire me, which is no different than hiring a maid.

I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do?  Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?

If that was so, the government would not be a government, it would be a business. Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary.

[BenTucker]

If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral.

beyond Locke's proviso the very fact that you occupy that location creates a monetary and legal obligation on me - what's the difference?

Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary

except when the business is a landlord and then it is no different than a government...