• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Medieval Iceland: Proof Anarchocapitalism Works

Started by Michael Fisher, October 05, 2005, 03:40 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

BillG

Quote from: Scott Roth on October 14, 2005, 06:16 PM NHFT
Good stuff.  Thanks, Hankster.

no problem...as a distributist (raised catholic) on the "old right" (advocating private ownership, small communities, agrarianism, smaller government, and the equitable distribution of goods and services within a society) I am propbably closest in individualist anarchistic ideology to mutualism (the state corrupts markets via privilege) and why I call myself a paleo-green Jeffersonian.

AlanM

Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 10:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Scott Roth on October 14, 2005, 06:16 PM NHFT
Good stuff.? Thanks, Hankster.

no problem...as a distributist (raised catholic) on the "old right" (advocating private ownership, small communities, agrarianism, smaller government, and the equitable distribution of goods and services within a society) I am propbably closest in individualist anarchistic ideology to mutualism (the state corrupts markets via privilege) and why I call myself a paleo-green Jeffersonian.

Hankster,
I can agree with a lot of what you say above, but can't accept, "and the equitable distribution of goods and services within a society". Unfortunately, this seems to be the thing you value most. *shrug*

BillG

Quote from: AlanM on October 14, 2005, 10:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 10:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Scott Roth on October 14, 2005, 06:16 PM NHFT
Good stuff.  Thanks, Hankster.

no problem...as a distributist (raised catholic) on the "old right" (advocating private ownership, small communities, agrarianism, smaller government, and the equitable distribution of goods and services within a society) I am propbably closest in individualist anarchistic ideology to mutualism (the state corrupts markets via privilege) and why I call myself a paleo-green Jeffersonian.

Hankster,
I can agree with a lot of what you say above, but can't accept, "and the equitable distribution of goods and services within a society". Unfortunately, this seems to be the thing you value most. *shrug*

I value EQUAL freedom the most.

all private laws (privi*leges granted by the state) shift costs and distort the market supposedly to enhance the common good - otherwise why would we do it?

this is the opposite of equal treatment under the law or the genesis of social injustice when the costs are shifted in such a ways as to violate labor-based property rights of those not entitled.

by removing state privilege - the equitable distribution of goods and services will be assured.

AlanM

I can't see how I am free when I am at the mercy of my neighbor's actions.

BillG

Quote from: AlanM on October 14, 2005, 10:55 PM NHFT
I can't see how I am free when I am at the mercy of my neighbor's actions.

you are correct - you can't be unless you own your land in today's land tenure system...but your so-called freedom can only come at the expense of others' freedoms

their actions via laboring to enhance their properties creates a positive externality to their neighbors.
a landowner capitalizing on that positive externality can only create a negative externality to those who are excluded.

- immediately for tenants
- in the future for buyers

the negative externality can only be satisfied by sacrificing the labor-based property rights of the excluded to their wages.

the only solution is to address the externality question based on labor-based property rights.

this way force only serves justified ends.

AlanM

Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 11:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on October 14, 2005, 10:55 PM NHFT
I can't see how I am free when I am at the mercy of my neighbor's actions.

you are correct - you can't be unless you own your land in today's land tenure system...but your so-called freedom can only come at the expense of others' freedoms

their actions via laboring to enhance their properties creates a positive externality to their neighbors.
a landowner capitalizing on that positive externality can only create a negative externality to those who are excluded.

- immediately for tenants
- in the future for buyers

the negative externality can only be satisfied by sacrificing the labor-based property rights of the excluded to their wages.

the only solution is to address the externality question based on labor-based property rights.

this way force only serves justified ends.

One very important point that you overlook: My neighbors action is voluntary on his part. I did not ask him to make improvements. I did not force him.
Sorry, Hankster, there is no justice to your theory, merely a giant giveaway.

BillG

QuoteOne very important point that you overlook: My neighbors action is voluntary on his part. I did not ask him to make improvements. I did not force him.

indeed...and thus the positive externality is involuntary to you - thus not created via your labor and so is the negative externality to those you exclude - which can only be paid from their labor.

Russell Kanning

Quote from: ladyattis on October 14, 2005, 09:36 PM NHFTFor example, the Persian army would conquer an area, but after the conquest, any remaining members of the defeated army were offered jobs automatically as part of the new government.

Only problem ..... an army that conquers.

tracysaboe

Read David D Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom."

He did a lot of research into Ancient Iceland's system.

They did have a Monarch I guess. But the only power that he had was the baility to codify pre-existing norms that the market legal system had already established. Legislative type things were done privately by competing guild-type systems, and private property owners making rules on their own property. Their was no government executive branch at all. simply competing security companies. Some worked fro private court systems. Others worked for these guilds. Others worked for individual businesses and individuals. Law and adjudicative functions were accomplished by competing legal services, private arbitration, and competing mediation companies. Yes, most of these companies did read these codifications of the King to help them make their decisions. But for the most part they were already common sence things that had already been established prior codification that a vast majority of the population. Plus these codifications really weren't binding. The King didn't have any institution to use to be able to force these private companies to issue rulings consistant with them even if they were. Basically people followed these codifications of their own free will. the King was a figurehead. Nothing more.

Tracy

Lloyd Danforth

#39
I had forgotten that was in 'Machinery', although, like the Rothbard book, I cited above, I have read it many times.? I think it was the ancient words like 'Truaths' that made the Rothbard thing memorable.

Michael Fisher


Michael Fisher

#41
Sorry, it's medieval Iceland, not ancient Iceland.? ?:-[? hehe

The voluntary governments of medieval Iceland and ancient Ireland prove that true individual choice is a viable option for a lasting free society.? Competing governments are the essence of freedom, while monopoly governments are the antithesis of freedom.

Today I found a 1982 film called Sophie's Choice which illustrates the true nature of the illusion of choice that exists under a monopoly government.? I urge everyone to see it and I haven't even seen it yet. ;)

Alan has contacted me privately about plans to create a tuath and I think it's time to move forward and found one, here and now.? ?:)

AlanM

 Since there seems to be a lot of interest in it, I will post my preliminary plan for a Truath based on the Irish model. I am working to expand it to include my thoughts on just what it might look like, but here is what I set down as a basic idea.
If enough folks are interested, we can set up a meeting to discuss it in more detail.


A New Paradigm

   What is Freedom? Seems like such a simple question, but is it really? And what allows Freedom to exist?
   While thinking of the previous thoughts, it dawned on me that Freedom is not something that is either taken from us, or given to us. Freedom exists as a natural state of nature. It is neither given to us, nor can we take it from another. If it is missing in our lives, it is because we have given it away. No one took it from us, nor did we take it from something, or someone. We, ourselves, have given it away. We have said, "I value something more than Freedom, therefore, I have given it away in exchange for that which I value more highly."
   What, then, was more valuable than Freedom? For each of us, the cost was dear, and varied from person to person, but invariably included, in differing amounts, safety, security, acceptance, and comfort.

Safety: I include in this the notion of physical safety of our persons, and of the ones we hold dear. Safety from physical aggression.

Security: This covers the security of our possessions and our ability to provide for ourselves and our loved ones.

Acceptance: Humans are social animals. We differ only in the amount of our sociability. Because we are social animals, we have a desire, no matter how limited it may be, for acceptance into a group, of some sort.

Comfort: The desire for comfort is, I believe, not relegated to material belongings only. Comfort includes things such as habit, surety of our place in our community, and tradition. It is our sense of overall well-being.

   If we surrendered our Freedom for these things, does it necessarily follow that in order to reclaim our Freedom, we must surrender our security, safety, acceptance, or comfort? I believe not. It is merely a matter of redefining the means to achieving them, not relinquishing them. Freedom can justly exist with safety, security, acceptance and comfort. It is also necessary to take an honest look at the present system of Laws, and the meaning of Society in the present day. With each new Law passed, the ability of the State to confiscate our possessions, indeed our very lives, increases. The Law is not a means of safety, security, acceptance or comfort, but rather a means to dole out those very wants, piecemeal, as Society dictates. They are also taken from us piecemeal, according to the dictates of Law and Society, all in the name of the Public Good.

   Such a way existed for a thousand years in Ireland, during the Middle Ages. The Irish system worked on a totally voluntary basis, and remained stable for a thousand years, ending with the invasion of Ireland by the English. It is my belief a similar system can be created now. The following are some ideas for developing a voluntary state-less society.


   Where to begin? Starting a Tuath (which I shall rename a Voluntary Group, or VG, for simplicity).

   A Voluntary Group (VG) can begin with the agreement of two or more people. Obviously a VG of only two would have great difficulties, (most noticibly in the settling of disputes), but it is possible. The necessity of an Agreement, based on sound principles, that becomes invilate by its members is paramount. Every member must be in complete accord, or breakdown is assured. This Agreement must therefore be simple in its construction. What must it be comprised of?

   How to become a member of the VG. It could be as simple as signing the Agreement. Another requirement which might make sense, is an investment. The investment might be a monetary one, either upfront, or spread out over a defined period of time, or perhaps an investment of labor or services. Regardless of the terms chosen, it would seem to me that there must be full membership granted from the time a person joins. Probationary periods will tend to be confusing and holding back full membership will be counter-productive of the purpose of a VG.

   Resigning or removal from the VG. Being a voluntary group, there must be explicit rules concerning the ability to resign, or leave the VG. For instance, if there was a monetary investment made upon joining the VG, is the investment returnable? If so, under what terms. If a person is to removed from the VG for violating any of the Terms of the Agreement, what are the steps and procedures?

   Heart of the matter, the basic philosophy and principles of the VG. I happen to believe in the Zero Agression Principle, and believe this can be the basic philosophy and principle of a VG. One thing that would be required to be added to make a workable VG would be a system of dispute resolution. The Irish example gives us such a system. The brehon, or professional jurists, were private individuals, who took on the task of dispute resolution. They received all their income, their livelihood, from the disputants, not the government, and therefore needed to maintain the highest integrity in their rulings or disputants would go elsewhere. All Brehons were totally independant of each other, and in fact competed with each other. The decisions of the brehon were, in effect, binding upon the disputants. The disputants had the option of adhering to the brehon's decision, ignoring the decision (which would most likely destroy their ability to continue in the truath, as their reputations would be in serious jeopardy), or leaving the truath and joining another.
   Arbitration of disputes must, be a part of the Agreement of a VG, in my opinion. No disputes must be allowed to be taken outside of the VG.
   Another important principle of a VG would be to require unanimity for new rules, thus maintaining the true voluntary nature of the truath.


   Reality check. How to deal with the present legal/political system presently enforced upon us.

   Each VG will have to determine on its own the extent to which they will operate in compliance with existing laws and regulations. It is theoretically possible, I imagine, to obey all existing laws, but the intrusion of these laws will tend to negate the benefits of a VG. Laws, after all, are not voluntary, though they may be voluntarily obeyed. The existence of the VG will diminish the need for the enforcement of some laws, and the use of law regulated activities, through the Arbitration process contained in the VG. For instance, the Courts will not be used by VG members for internal disputes. As a VG grows in size in particular town or area, its political power will grow, and the possibility of less burdensome laws, (or even their total elimination), increases. Some members of VGs will opt to participate in local, or state-wide politics, while others might refuse to participate. The extent to which the membership is willing to participate will possibly begin to effect the climate of control and regulation. If, say, the VG members worked to eliminate Zoning, this would have a positive effect on the VG.
   Such actions as using precious metals for internal exchange, or simple barter, will allow members to make a personal choice to claim their full income for taxes, or no. It would be important, as I see it, to create a self-sustainable economy within the VG, or as nearly so as possible. Eliminating out-side influences upon the VG will eliminate involuntary intrusions. 

cathleeninnh

Maybe you guys are ahead of me on thinking about this, but I have some initial thoughts.

Sounds like you need MAJOR cooperation. I know many of us ( you know who you are) have failed marriages, so cooperation might not be our long points. Uncomplicated entry and exit is important. Can dues be the deciding mechanism? What is simpler than paid, or not?

Private property is essential.

The Amish avoid entanglements, support each other and still maintain private property.

Is tax/regulatory/law compliance decided on a group basis or an individual basis?

Cathleen


AlanM

#44
Quote from: cathleeninnh on November 02, 2005, 08:20 AM NHFT
Maybe you guys are ahead of me on thinking about this, but I have some initial thoughts.

Sounds like you need MAJOR cooperation. I know many of us ( you know who you are) have failed marriages, so cooperation might not be our long points. Uncomplicated entry and exit is important. Can dues be the deciding mechanism? What is simpler than paid, or not?

I agree with you here. Simple entrance and exit. Dues, or if you will, investment, I think can work.

QuotePrivate property is essential.
Most definitely private property. If two or more people wish to join in a partnership, that is fine. Everything is voluntary. he only part that is all inclusive is the VG itself, which, again, is voluntary.

QuoteThe Amish avoid entanglements, support each other and still maintain private property.

Is tax/regulatory/law compliance decided on a group basis or an individual basis?

The VGs part of it is by necessity on a group basis, but all else is individual.