http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/1226
Read that article. By now you've probably come to the sudden realization that PEOPLE in general don't take anarchy seriously. Let alone, they don't bother to find out what it really is. I think that we have been taking this wrong way. Of course, not to say that all these ideas on the forum are stupid and have no realistic qualities. The writer in the link above clearly states his position: Anarchists are almost impossible to get rid of. They are everywhere and there are more of them then ever.
Let me ask you all a question? Why the hell are there so many of us and we are not doing anything with the power we have "accidentally" acquired??
The writer pointed out the obvious; there are many anarchists. You do realize that if we opened up to a little necessary violence, we could achieve things that we never thought possible. Don't gain the misunderstanding that I am all for violence. Rather, I am for violence in totally necessary situations.
You've probably heard the common cliche for starting an anarchist army. I, myself, are a sucker for that idea. Here is what I suggest:
1. Starting this army is not totally out of the question. I have already gather forces from my hometown. So far we have about 20 men. We ran some 'experiments' on a crowd of government hoodlums(drug dealers) and they buckled and ran for their lives. That was with only 20 men. We, in this case, are called vigilantes. We openly admit to being anarchists and those druggie scum run from us. We have successfully cut crime down to a astonishing 10% as it was orginally up at about 65%.
2. We secede from the U.S My force has decided to leave for Europe. It is totally possible. I have a 20 page booklet saying so. At first, they won't really notice. But as proven during the 60's rebellion, if enough of us leave; they begin notice.
3. The reform part really can't be discussed here on this web site so e-mail me for the last bit.
anarman4@yahoo.com
Because the drug dealers were victimizing you? Or you just don't agree with their business model or product?
because they attacked us. Usually, I don't promote overall violence, but this was a life or death situation.
Plus, we got some sort of personal joy watching them being sentenced in the "unbiased" court.
That article should be titled "Socialist Anarchy is stupid" and with that I wholeheartedly agree. ;)
It is almost a contradiction in terms. Remove private property ownership and you're left with public property. If it is truly owned by everyone at once (no state) then the scenario described in the article is quite likely (if everybody owns it everybody counts on anybody else to maintain and develop it, meaning that things rarely actually get done). Otherwise you have the state as the manager of this public property and it is therefore its defacto owner.
While I as a voluntaryist believe in socialist anarchists right to try and build their society, so long as they don't coerce anyone to be a part of it, I seriously think that it would either result in an even more oppressive state (as it did before) or they would simply gradually drop the idea and join the voluntaryist free market.
So, CSAnarchist, there's nothing to take seriously in the kind of anarchy that article describes. Even I don't take it seriously.
That said, if we're gonna talk about actually making progress with anarcho-capitalism / market anarchy / voluntaryistm I think one of the best hopes is agorism more so than any sort of violence. If you're gonna form an army, let it be a competing police force offering people security and protection services instead of police.. especially those who don't want to pay taxes since they don't want government's equivalent services. Instead of paying taxes, let them voluntarily pay your defense agency instead. Of course, that's a very risky proposition, but it's a proposition.
that's exactly it. You're anarchists, but you aren't REALLY anarchists. Anarchists are rank with terms like destruction and chaos. I think we should use those to our advantage.
Quote from: CSAnarchist on August 12, 2008, 12:11 PM NHFT
that's exactly it. You're anarchists, but you aren't REALLY anarchists. Anarchists are rank with terms like destruction and chaos. I think we should use those to our advantage.
If you want to use destruction and chaos to your advantage, run for president. Anarchy has nothing to do with it. Destruction nor chaos are nowhere in the original meaning of the word nor are most anarchists actually propagating destruction or chaos, so such connotations are false.
The same, however, cannot be said of the state and statism. Most people may view me as a lunatic when claiming this, but it is government and state which should be equated with "destruction" and "chaos", because that is exactly what it is, being in a constant and perpetual state of war: war between the rulers and the ruled, war between states themselves. And what else is war than destruction and chaos?
Free market and free individuals partaking in them are a constant casualty of this chaos.
Everything is upside down in the mainstream perception. Let's not feed those lies ourselves.
This is precisely the reason why I tend to use the word "voluntaryist" more than "anarchist" or "anarcho-capitalist".
Anarchy can be both orderly and chaotic, its not really defined by the term.
Governance is associated with societal order.
The reason for this is that natural order must take into account both cooperative and competive interactions. The free market is an excellent example of both these occuring... sometimes all at once.
'X' may be cooperating with 'Y' to compete with 'Z'.
Governance acts as a framework to limit the scope of the chaos (options). Unlike the Free Market which would allow all possibilities to compete... government removes some options. So while 'X' might cooperate with 'Y' to compete with 'Z', government might make it impossible for 'X' to cooperate with 'Z'. Thus coercing 'X' to act alone or in cooperation with 'Y'.
Whenever societal order is attempted it artificially limits the potential options and outcomes.
As society matures it may accept some of these options, but at a great cost.
Agreed, except maybe the "great cost" as I'm not sure what it refers to. The trouble is, people tend to view "anarchy" as solely chaos rather than possibly both chaos and order and so dismiss it entirely.
Also, the way you described it made me think of "chaos" as possibly meaning both violent and non-violent types of chaos. When you have both cooperation and competition in the free market among variety of different people offering variety of different things in pursuit of variety of different values, we could say there is a state of chaos, but if there is no or little violence going on throughout all of these processes, I wouldn't consider this kind of chaos as negative, and might even see it as a form of order, only one which we can't quite put into a nice centralized hierarchical structure in our minds (which we seem to picture as "order").
But most people's process of thinking when faced with the term "anarchy" seems to be this: Anarchy = Chaos = violence and destruction everywhere, everyone killing and robbing everyone = evil. So anarchy = evil and all anarchists and alike people must be a big threat. They don't even begin to see the positives, and to them the word "anarchy" no longer means merely "lack of coercive authority", but literally "violent chaos".
Attempting to use violent chaos for our cause would only strenghten this perception, not to mention be dishonest if ones goal is freedom because violence seldom cooperates with freedom.
Cheers
Chaos just means not having a detectable pattern.
I posted a site to test Right/Left Brain Function a while back. Most replied that the answers felt vague or strange. The reason being is the answers were designed so that a left dominant brain would find 'pattern' in one answer... but not the other two. While a right dominant brain would find 'pattern' in a different answer... but not the other two. The test determined the percentage of answers for each side then equated an answer. All the answers were correct, but some just felt wrong or unattached, depending on the individual.
The 'great cost' is the slow process of mass enlightenment.
QuoteRemove private property ownership and you're left with public property. If it is truly owned by everyone at once (no state) then the scenario described in the article is quite likely (if everybody owns it everybody counts on anybody else to maintain and develop it, meaning that things rarely actually get done). Otherwise you have the state as the manager of this public property and it is therefore its defacto owner.
Haven't you ever heard of common ownership where everyone has an individual, equal access right? So your analysis sets up a false dichotomy. Unfortunately people use the word "public" to mean both collectively owned (joint ownership) and owned in common. Sorry, they are
not the same.
Public property is not willingly purchased by all individual involved, nor is one's interest transferable through sale.
Joint ownership is fine if everyone involved agree to share the cost of purchase, and I'm not at all opposed to socialist anarchists doing that and then establishing a socialist system upon that jointly owner property. That may be the only way of doing it without resorting to coercion, that is back to state socialism.
Which is why I think it's such a contradiction, anarchist socialism, because if they're just jointly buying property they're actually participating in a free market or in other words, a free market is a precondition to the establishment of such a socialist group, yet at the same time they seem opposed to the idea of markets and embrace the idea of public property instead. So it's almost like they're just state socialists disguised as "anarchists", without possibly even being fully aware of it because they so severely misunderstand the way states come into being..
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 14, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
Public property is not willingly purchased by all individual involved, nor is one's interest transferable through sale.
And common property in many cases is not purchased at all but rather provided "free" by nature. The only role of governance as legitimate agency is to insure individual equal access rights are upheld.
Examples?
So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 14, 2008, 05:58 PM NHFT
So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?
Common law.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 14, 2008, 06:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 14, 2008, 05:58 PM NHFT
So natural order arbitrates that any body of surface water over 20 acres is held in common?
Common law.
I think better examples would be land and resource allocation by certain Native American tribes in pre-colonized North America, and the practice of 'open range' cattle grazing supported by American ranchers prior to the creation of barbed wire fencing.
As an example of naturally derived common property?
Common property can be held by a group of individuals through consent of contract.
Which is what Native Americans and the Mayflower Compact would have been about. The Compact made game animals and fish common property.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 15, 2008, 10:14 AM NHFT
As an example of naturally derived common property?
Common property can be held by a group of individuals through consent of contract.
Which is what Native Americans and the Mayflower Compact would have been about. The Compact made game animals and fish common property.
And the salient point is that common property is an individual not a collective right. The difference being that if property is held jointly (collectively) then one must get the consent of all of the other joint owners before access/use whereas with property held in common one has free and clear use so long as you don't infringe upon the individual rights of anyone else to the same.
See the difference?
But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.
I believe that "public property" is the cause of most social issues. If any thing is owned by more than on person, there must exist rules on what can be done with that property. There then must be definition on the terms used in those rules. This is where "law" comes from. Incididentally, because the defintions needed to make laws clear are often contrary to commonly held understanding of the terms used, it's why law seems so damn goofy.
Quote from: 'gu3st'Joint ownership is fine
I actually disagree because I think it's simply impossible for two human beings to have entirely consistant plans and definitions. Once those come into conflict, the only solution is to deprive one person of "their" property (via arbitration or force) or deprive BOTH parties of "their" property.
In my mind, the "universal" proof for property ownership extends from the act of eating. Eating is a VERY intimate thing, even more so than sex. Eating takes matter and makes it into a part of our own bodies and sustains life. This is why I consider "life, liberty and property" to be a singular concept and NOT a heirarchy of values. Because a human being must eat, and the act of eating a berry ipso facto deprives other people the ability to eat that same berry, property ownsership is a singular event. Two people can't eat the same berry, no matter how many contracts and stipulations you put upon it. For that reason, I reject that "jointly owned" property can exist.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 15, 2008, 11:54 AM NHFT
But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.
Your use of the word "public" is much too broad. Use of collective and common property helps.
There is a common right of way that is an individual right that runs thru the collectively owned roads and sidewalks. The use of the collectively owned roads and sidewalks is regulated depending on the amount of damage that can be inflicted upon fellow travellers.
The only regulation upon walkers of the sidewalk in the use of the common right of way is that they can not block (infringe) upon anyone else's equal right to the same use. Apply the same logic to lakes.
QuoteI believe that "public property" is the cause of most social issues.
And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right and the other an individual individual right.
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right
Either I see the distinction, and reject it, or there's a false choice fallacy being presented. I am not a collectivist, I hold that ONLY individuals can have rights. No individual has the right to dictate how one person may use their property, therefor no group of individuals have that right, including but not limited to "telling someone they can't block a sidewalk". Furthermore, I reject the so-called "common law" doctrine of "easement".
Is that distinction clear, I want to make sure that I'm communicating my viewpoints effectively. :)
Quote from: Kevin Dean on August 15, 2008, 01:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: 'BillKauffman'And do you understand the distinction between "collectively owned" and "owned in common"? One being a group joint right
Either I see the distinction, and reject it, or there's a false choice fallacy being presented. I am not a collectivist, I hold that ONLY individuals can have rights.
Yes, common property is an individual, equal access right. So, you don't see the distinction.
Actually, I think Kevin made an excellent point and I'm compelled to agree that even joint ownership is not fine and reject all forms of "common", "joint", "collective" ownership.
You can own something and then contract it to others for use under your terms and for the time you specify. This doesn't mean that the others who enter into such a contract are co-owners. They're not. The original owner is still the sole owner.
So I'm hard pressed at this point to accept ANY notion of ownership that involves two or more people owning the same thing, even if it is lakes, rivers, parts of rivers, forests or whatever.
Quote from: BillKauffman
Yes, common property is an individual, equal access right. So, you don't see the distinction.
I have another either-or statement. :)
Either you're being severely vague and unclear about what you're saying (perhaps by "common property" you refer to individual property contracted to others for use under his terms, as described above) OR you're still trying to push the idea of two or more people owning same property, in which case I too reject the idea.
Cheers
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 15, 2008, 12:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 15, 2008, 11:54 AM NHFT
But public-owned property is for the most point not being treated as such.
Example boats on the lake. Certain sizes and types of boats need to be registered, while others do not.
Those requiring registery are being removed from their tenancy in common.
Your use of the word "public" is much too broad. Use of collective and common property helps.
There is a common right of way that is an individual right that runs thru the collectively owned roads and sidewalks. The use of the collectively owned roads and sidewalks is regulated depending on the amount of damage that can be inflicted upon fellow travellers.
The only regulation upon walkers of the sidewalk in the use of the common right of way is that they can not block (infringe) upon anyone else's equal right to the same use. Apply the same logic to lakes.
One is a restriction... the other is a taxation. The two are mutually exclusive. For example no boat may pass within the a 150 ft zone of another at greater than headway speed. This is a restriction and would affect motorized boats, but not human powered. But the taxation is an infringement of common property rights, its not equal.
It would be the same as if you and I owned property together, while I tent... your expected to pay extra because you use a motorhome. You haven't infringed on my usage, unless you run over my tent injuring me... but you have been infringed upon by unequal costing.
Several of you guys have brought up interesting points regarding property rights in the present day scenario. Call me old fashioned but I sort of wish I could have lived a century or three ago. Fewer people, more available land if you didn't mind removing the indigenous people at the point of a gun or because it was god's will, etc. Multiple continents to venture onto too. I'm also a fan of the American Indian, if you're not using it, why is it your land thing, but that doesn't fly today for alot of reasons.
I submit where we are now could be a transitional stepping stone back to a feudal system where the average person "owns" nothing and is merely a tenant. Some would say we are already there. Instead of kings and lords we now have a kinder gentler softer fuedal system with twinkies and T.V but fuedal nevertheless...some might even say a "futile" system.
Native Americans land ownership was 'tenancy in common'. But they did own land, as most tribes were extremely territorial.
Quote from: Free libertarian on August 15, 2008, 08:07 PM NHFT
I'm also a fan of the American Indian, if you're not using it, why is it your land thing, but that doesn't fly today for alot of reasons.
I submit where we are now could be a transitional stepping stone back to a feudal system where the average person "owns" nothing and is merely a tenant.
How do you explain Hong Kong? Nobody owns their own land, it is all leased, yet they consistently score near the top on all the economic freedom indexes.
Quote from: Free libertarian on August 15, 2008, 08:07 PM NHFTI'm also a fan of the American Indian, if you're not using it, why is it your land thing, but that doesn't fly today for alot of reasons.
Without a state, I think the various notions of property will tend to result in a reasonable commonality ending up somewhere in between the radical ends of the scale, i.e. somewhere between "stick a flag in it and you own it" and "you can't own anything and it stops being your property the moment you stop actively using it". I think both sides have something to contribute to the debate and these issues will find their reasonable boundaries by interactions in the free market including free courts, DROs, etc. This might upset some of the more intense property rights people, but I think it's the reality. There are hard principles but no hard lines in reality. The state merely makes arbitrary lines seem hard by the constant threat of force to back up their decrees.
Quote from: BillKauffman on August 16, 2008, 09:13 PM NHFT
How do you explain Hong Kong? Nobody owns their own land, it is all leased, yet they consistently score near the top on all the economic freedom indexes.
So who are they leasing from - there are the owners.
Many NA tribes were not agricultural, so actual 'homesteading' didn't occur.
The current system works, and would work without the government-ownership of property.
Many homeowner/condo associations have common property... and many partnerships have collective property.