Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

PaganToris · 2003-01-01 11:18:34

I think ANARCHYISM is a good thing i mean we dont need no rules unless yer one of those people who use wepeons to fight but other than the use of guns and knifes it would be cool to have NO RULES. My brother and one of my friends who post oin this forum claim to be a anarchist.
its funny we play Grand Theft Auto Vice city and we just cause alll anarchy and chaos.
I also like to say that I AM A COMUNIST im sorry Phobos i had to say it COMUNIST are going to take over the world and theres nothing we can do bout it accept use ANARCHY forces
so my post doas make alot f u laugh yes i know but ITS ALL GRAVY AND A BASKET OF BISKETS

soph · 2003-01-01 11:34:13

go back to playing gta.

Echus_Chasma · 2003-01-01 15:56:18

lol

Phobos · 2003-01-01 15:58:23

OMG! Phobos actually advocating anarchism!?!? WTF???

LOL, I'm big on getting rid of the state which anarchists seek to do. I differ though from a lot of anarchists in that, for various reasons, I'm not a big supporter of hardcore state socialism in lieu of capitalism if the state continues to exist. A lot of anarchists might call me a traitor for saying that but oh well.

think ANARCHYISM is a good thing i mean we dont need no rules unless yer one of those people who use wepeons to fight but other than the use of guns and knifes it would be cool to have NO RULES. My brother and one of my friends who post oin this forum claim to be a anarchist.

Don't equate anarchism with chaos. A lot of people make that mistake. Go read that article I pointed to if you want to see how anarchism could work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-01 19:20:02

Why would they? Anarchists don't want a state in any form...

Palomar · 2003-01-02 10:35:18

Don't equate anarchism with chaos. A lot of people make that mistake. Go read that article I pointed to if you want to see how anarchism could work.

*I'll definitely read the article; thanks for referring it.

A little item I'd like to recommend for reading is Otto J. Bettmann's book _The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible!_. It **sure** puts things into perspective, i.e. that some (note I said -SOME-) rules/regulations aren't always a bad thing. I'd really hate for future Marsians to make similar incredibly stupid and bone-headed mistakes early European settlers in the U.S. made.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-01-02 11:18:38

Long ago - ryjaz wrote:

In it he (Proudhon) holds the view that no one can own anything he/she does not use. To put this in context, he was writing specifically against the ideas of a landlord being able to own property and rent it out. He considered this relationship parasitic (my own phrasing) in that the landlord has no claim to the property as they were not using it.

Pat Galea said:

I have some respect for Proudhon's view. Obviously, being a capitalist, I disagree with him; but at least his concept is internally consistent.
In many capitalist texts that I've read, there is a degree of sloppiness in this area. A simple claim is made that you have ownership of your body (not too controversial); then a jump is made with very little intervening argument to the idea that you can therefore claim as property things that you have homesteaded and thus dispose of them as you please.
The conclusion is (I think) sound, but the intervening logic is far from convincing.
I believe this is a weakness in the current expositions of the theory, rather than a weakness in the theory itself. But it is, nevertheless, a weakness.

I believe Trotsky said "Tools belong to the man who can best use them"

A great place for further investigation are the homestead claims and squatters rights issues that arose on the US frontier. In the 1820s a US Supreme Court case - Green v. Biddle - addressed a conflict between the rights of Virginia land grant holders (who never went west themselves) and the rights of small farmers and families who actually occupied and improved portions of Kentucky and Tennessee that were included in those Virginia land grants.

The Virginians won - by the way - but the case is useful for exploring these issues.

It seems to me that one critical question is how far can we push the meaning of the word "use" - if I invest cash in my brother's business aren't I using my money? If I buy an apartment building instead of a mainframe computer to accomplish computations or a truck to carry cargo do I not I use my property every bit as much?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 16:59:39

Not if you're renting that apartment building, that mainframe, or that truck. Then someone else is using it...

I think we're looking for ?direct use,? perhaps? Proudhon basically argues that the constructs we have for property are inherently irrational. If I own ten houses, I can't possibly use them directly all at the same time. I can only use one at a time. Even though I'm renting these houses, and ?use? them indirectly since I'm, well, ?getting rent.? Getting rent is certainly useful to some of us... however, I think the overall economic wealth of an anarchist (or socalist with a very very small state) system would be much greater.

Bill White · 2003-01-03 15:13:02

Not if you're renting that apartment building, that mainframe, or that truck. Then someone else is using it...
I think we're looking for ?direct use,? perhaps? Proudhon basically argues that the constructs we have for property are inherently irrational. If I own ten houses, I can't possibly use them directly all at the same time. I can only use one at a time. Even though I'm renting these houses, and ?use? them indirectly since I'm, well, ?getting rent.? Getting rent is certainly useful to some of us... however, I think the overall economic wealth of an anarchist (or socalist with a very very small state) system would be much greater.

I can pretty much agree that all property "began" as theft and even Pat Galea admits that the origins of ownership are troubling although he believes the issue can be solved. . .

However - the forcible abolition of property also is theft IMHO and the "original sin" of the creation of property is water under the bridge. To abolish property or enact laws to prohibit the renting of buildings and the like would also be theft - IMHO - unless all current property owners joined together with a universal fully voluntary renouncement of their property rights.

Not too likely as a practical matter and if there is any coercion whatsoever then the moral legitimacy of your property-less society flies out the window.

Proudhon basically argues that the constructs we have for property are inherently irrational.

Perhaps from a strict philosophical point of view - however - as a practical matter private property and free markets have improved the standard of living and wealth of those societies that adopt such systems.

Amartya Sen justifies private property and capitalism and free markets as enhancing the freedom of individuals to direct and control their own lives. Private property is not morally grounded in the past but in the future.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 06:38:22

Hmm, Bill. I guess I've squandered all that good sense I was making awhile there, eh?

I agree with you, though. That abolishing property currently would be much like theft (at least, to those who have a lot of it). This is why I argue that if we're going to abolish property, it would come about by people doing it themselves, because they're basically tired of being bitched around, and those who still desire property would follow helplessly (what good is property in a society where profit is non-existant in capitalistic terms?).

But I think Proudhon doesn't mean to say that property originated in theft (though he does seem to argue that, with his discussion about the original laws), but that property is a continual projection of theft.

Read his inital propositions:

Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over any thing which he has stamped as his own.

FIRST PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.

SECOND PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because, wherever it exists, Production costs more than it is worth.

THIRD PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because, with a given Capital, Production is proportional to Labor, not to Property.

FOURTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because it is Homicide.

FIFTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.

SIXTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.

SEVENTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it
loses them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and, in using them as Capital, it turns them against Production.

EIGHTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because its Power of Accumulation is infinite, and is exercised only over Finite Quantities.

NINTH PROPOSITION
Property is Impossible, because it is powerless against Property.

TENTH PROPOSITION.
Property is Impossible, because it is the Negation of Equality.

He basically proves these through logical arguments in his book. You may get it here: http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/t9.cgi?author=Proudhon

My favorite propositions are 1, 8 and 10.

I agree that the free market is wonderful. But I have a slightly different point of view with regard to ecnomics. I don't believe that a free market can exist in an environment where non-public monopolies exist.

Proudhon prefers to use the word possession in the place of property, mainly because of how often people confuse the two. I cannot see how property itself allows direct control over ones own life; this is indeed the purpose of possession. However, I can certainly see how property itself allows direct control over one elses life (and indeed, as Proudhon effectively argues, is it's only purpose).

soph · 2003-01-05 06:51:15

so nobody owns anything? i can walk over onto my neighbors lawn and sleep there? jee, i think ill go over to the white house and take a nap, and a nice stroll in the oval office.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 07:08:16

Don't confuse property and possession.

soph · 2003-01-05 07:14:40

property=ownership.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 07:42:43

In this context... property = the right of increase claimed by the proprietor over any thing which he has stamped as his own.

Bill White · 2003-01-05 20:53:48

Hmmm. . .

How does Proudhon improve on this?

The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then.
Nicomachean Ethics - by Aristotle - Written 350 B.C.E

Isn't Aristotle saying that unless property is used to accomplish greater goods or attain higher virutes then the pursuit of property is a foolish way to spend one's life? Money can never be the greatest good one pursues - if it is you are sadly mislead.

Or I can quote the Christian Gospels to say that no one can serve God and Mammon. How can anyone love God and love money?

I suspect that Proudhon's ten propositions say more or less what Aristotle and the Gospel writers said millenia ago, except those ten propositions are far harder to understand, IMHO. THey also add a number of difficuolt and extraneous points.

I will assert that if all humanity followed these portions of the Gospel message and put "love of God" or "love of one's fellow humans" above the "love of money" or if we truly followed Aristotle's guidance then most of the evils arising from the misguided implementation of capitalism would vanish.

So long as I had enough to eat and a warm house, if someone wanted to "use" my property - I would say "sure thing" just as I let my neighbor borrow my lawn mower with no questions asked. All for one and one for all and all that good stuff.

But, we humans are not angels and until we ALL become angels I still believe private property rights and the free markets do offer the greatest good for the greatest number. Too often - IMHO - efforts to abolish private property are transformed into a regime where all property is owned by the State. I daresay even Proudhon would agree that it is far worse for the State to own all property than to acknowledge private property for individuals.

Besides, I also believe the very idea of private property is rather like Kurt Vonnegut's "ice nine" - - once the idea is released in the meme-sphere there is no putting it back.

Do I make sense?

Palomar · 2003-01-05 22:59:00

Don't confuse property and possession.

*Not that I'm greatly versed on this particular aspect of their philosophy on the matter, but both John Locke (17th century Englishman, considered one of the greatest Western thinkers of all time) and 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand insisted that without property rights there could be no individual rights, i.e. that the right to property is the foundation upon which all other rights are built and depend.

I don't know the background or indepth details of how Locke or Rand came to formulate their opinion in this regard; I'm simply tossing this into the discussion for consideration.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 04:28:34

I've actually quoted the following bits from Proudhon's book, What is Property to clark before; I think it was the first time I read the book and I was quite enthusastic about the ideas within. Having since formalized my own ideas with regard to his, though, I can say that enthusiasm was not unfounded. But let me quote his basic rules of society:

I. Individual POSSESSION[1] is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. PROPERTY is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.

II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself.

III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity.

IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property.

V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery.

VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and
outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal.

VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and
pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.

VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that
is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of EQUITABLE or PROPORTIONAL law only.

IX. Free association, liberty--whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges--is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society.

X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.

Can I agree with these ideas? Well, I'm not sure. Like I said, I still don't quite know myself. I can, however, extropolate real world (current world) ideas to each and every one of his propostions.

Check out his definition of anarchy (he makes some smart ass remarks towards Marx in this definition, it's great).

ANARCHY,--the absence of a master, of a sovereign,[1]--such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating, and which our accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for law, leads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of chaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth century having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the good man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from laughter at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our prejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author--a zealous communist-- dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns,--their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, "Everybody is king." But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, "Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated." Every question of domestic politics must be decided by departmental statistics; every question of foreign politics is an affair of international statistics. The science of government rightly belongs to one of the sections of the Academy of Sciences, whose permanent secretary is necessarily prime minister; and, since every citizen may address a memoir to the Academy, every citizen is a legislator. But, as the opinion of no one is of any value until its truth has been proven, no one can substitute his will for reason,--nobody is king.

Bill White · 2003-01-06 12:05:06

I have long asserted - in others forums to be sure and perhaps at NewMars as well - that the settlement of Mars gives humanity the chance to "re-play" or "do over" the Enlightenment especially with respect to issues arising from the origin and utility of property rights.

Not that humanity did the Enlightnement poorly

but it would be great if we could witness many of the great minds of that era - such as Cindy's beloved Voltaire - engage in dialouge with folks such as Darwin, Proudhon, Marx as well as Adam Smith and Edward Gibbon.

Should property rights be allowed on Mars? If YES, how should such rights be structured and organized?

Great questions - IMHO - and uncertainty about how they will be answered does "chill" humanity's willingness to invest the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to actually settle Mars. Josh's Proudhon quotes do clarify - IMHO - the notion that property rights are inherently tied to the existence of a sovereign. No sovereign then no meaningful property rights. And since the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 forbids governments from claiming sovereign jurisdiction over Mars, no Terran government can recognize, defend or enforce a property rights scheme on Mars.

Claims of private individuals would then depend on the firepower such persons could deploy to defend his/her claim which returns us to Hobbes and Locke and the "state of nature" -and voila' - the beginning of the Enlightenment!

Josh - with all due respect to a fellow who has his heart in the right place -

Proudhon's anarchy - IMHO - would work IF AND ONLY IF people could be relied upon to refrain from choosing to re-possess things possessed by other people - whether by coercion or force. Why wouldn't the strongest person in an anarchy simply appropriate the best for himself and tell the weaker to go scratch?

The ancient Greeks liked to say that the function and purpose of government is to protect the weaker from the stronger. When a sovereign government is formed and a collective police department established, I then have someone to call *IF* a motorcycle gang decides they need to possess my house rather than me.

By freely establishing a regime with respects the rights of property for all of us, we are all more secure in our lives and liberty. The opening chapter of Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom is very educational on this subject.

= = =

PS - Since I believe that property rights can only meaningfully exist in the context of a sovereign power to recognize such rights, then I find Ayn Rand's notion that the "right" of property trumps all to be self contradictory even though I do believe that robust rights of private property can balance the tyranny of an unchecked sovereogn power.

soph · 2003-01-06 14:38:42

Josh-those quotes are silly. let me analyze:

PROPERTY is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.

First of all, like I said, a house is property. Do I not have a right to own a house? It goes against most economic principles.

III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity.
IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property.

Quite frankly, this doesnt make sense. Labor destroys property? It sounds nice, but it doesn't mean anything. And let me point out that all labor is not equal. It is exemplified in nature as well as humanity. There are strong people, quick people, smart people, etc. Not all people have the same capabilities.

V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery.

See above. Would you pay the same for a diamond bracelet as you would for cubic zirconium?

VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.

This is hilarious. This is the barter system. What does money represent? The value of goods. So in a way, the dollar is a good just like bread. This statement claims to be in the economic right, but its really not.

X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy.

Name me one example of successful anarchy in nature or human history.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 22:46:25

Bill, I can say that I agree wiht much of what you said. The only thing I may have an issue with is your comment about property being tied to a sovereign. I would argue that possession is more tied to sovereignity than property (in the appropriative sense), since possession is a possessive form and not an appropriation form. A sovereign or sovereignity is limited to its own sphere. Appropriation property inherently requires that you continue to expand your sphere (inevitably encroaching anothers sovereignity- and being nothing less than an imperialist, or at the very least, a hypocrite). This is why we have wars over oil and so on.

So while I agree with you, I disagree about the forms of property one has. Possession is merely individual sovereignity. Property (in the appropriation sense) is not sovereign at all.

Oh, there was another thing I just wanted to clarify, and I hope you can at least agree with my answer to your question, you asked, ?Why wouldn't the strongest person in an anarchy simply appropriate the best for himself and tell the weaker to go scratch??

It's a legitimate question. And this has actually happened before. I can't cite a exact source at the momment, but basically the anarchists disassociated. The problem, I believe, was that didn't have a lot of resources, and were basically run off. This was back when Marxism kicked out the anarchists, if I recall correctly. Too bad the stupid Marxist's were hell bent on power rather than liberty and justice. Then again, it's better that Marxism have failed rather than anarchism. I think both systems are doomed to fail without the proper resources. And that's really my answer to your question... if resources are abundant, first, why would people allow him to appropriate if property was posessive? And second, even if he did manage to get people to give them their possessions, there would obviously be other anarchists around to point out his utter stupidity. Plus, who knows, there might even be an actual law, forbidding such actions, resulting in exile or the like.

All imho of course.

soph,

First of all, like I said, a house is property. Do I not have a right to own a house? It goes against most economic principles.

Yes, you have a right to own a house. Proudhon is just saying you don't have a right to own more than one house at a time, basically. Does that make sense?

It doesn't go against most economic principles, because there are lots of laws limiting ones own appropriation ablities, and these laws hardly degenerate the economic capacity of a given system.

If anything it would revitalize whole economies at the sake of a few rich people.

Quite frankly, this doesnt make sense. Labor destroys property? It sounds nice, but it doesn't mean anything. And let me point out that all labor is not equal. It is exemplified in nature as well as humanity. There are strong people, quick people, smart people, etc. Not all people have the same capabilities.

Well, it's a complicated point he's making. He's basically saying that once people are given exactly what they put in to a system (ie, the resultant products, or benefits from those products), then the appropriative form of property cannot exist.

He's not saying that all people get the same wage. He's saying all people get equal wage proportionate to the job which they're doing.

See above. Would you pay the same for a diamond bracelet as you would for cubic zirconium?

Well, this isn't the point he's making. He's saying that diamond miners ought to have equal wage. This is, of course, a no brainer...

This statement claims to be in the economic right, but its really not.

I'm confused by your comments in this whole post. He's just saying that because people get a direct result of their labor (ie, exactly what they put in) individuals can't profit (by virtue of the fact that getting something from nothing is stupid).

Name me one example of successful anarchy in nature or human history.

There have been successful revolutions, but there aren't actual, whole societies practicing it at the momment. There are, however, thousands of groups which do practice it. More so than any other alternative political construct as far as I know. Read this.

soph · 2003-01-13 13:39:21

Funny how you seem to lack any desire to refute that property means nothing without enforcement of some kind.

If I grow a tomato in my backyard, that is my property. Where is the enforcement?

Lets take a situation without any enforcement. We have a bunch of people. Who controls what property? Who sleeps where? How do you appropriate resources without an enforcement agency in place?

No progress could be done without a government to keep a system of order. Why has communism never occured? Because we need a governming body.

Lots of resources means profit is not viable, little resources means the opposite...

Not true. Say there are 50 tons of gold. Only I have the expertise necessary to make that gold into jewelry. So everybody can get a ton, but only i get the maximum profit. So, profit is viable in any environment.

If you find a new and better way to use water, you can still profit, even though there is water in abundance.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 16:12:50

If I grow a tomato in my backyard, that is my property. Where is the enforcement?

If someone goes into your backyard, and takes that tomato, they are stealing, and you can call the police and get them arrested for theft and treaspassing. Your property is enforced by law. And perhaps that tall fence you have with the briar bush beneath! Not to mention the gun you have underneath your bed...

...the point is, that we've come to learn not abrogate other peoples property because there are consequences.

Lets take a situation without any enforcement. We have a bunch of people. Who controls what property? Who sleeps where? How do you appropriate resources without an enforcement agency in place?

You control the property you live on, and you sleep on the property you live on. You are sovereign within your property. But it's not property we're talking about. We're talking possessions. You may appropriate resources if you want. But there's an upper level as to how many resources you can appropriate.

The concept is exactly the same as before. Except in this case you aren't allowed to control property you don't live on, mainly due to the fact, that, well, you're not sleeping on that property and it's not being used by yourself directly. You're making other people pay you to use property which is yours only by contract.

No progress could be done without a government to keep a system of order. Why has communism never occured? Because we need a governming body.

Sure it can. Behold. The internet. The internet is anarchy. The internet is a system of decenteralized nodes which act independently, but share their resources with each other. Each node is sovereign. The internet does have a body with defines protocols and so on, but there is no real governing body in place; people themselves decide which protocols are deserving of popularity. Oh, well, perhaps IPv6 could be considered a governing body, but I would disagree since you're almost always given an address block without question. If anything IPv6 is just a way to hand out the resources until everyone has some, then it will not be necessary.

Not true. Say there are 50 tons of gold. Only I have the expertise necessary to make that gold into jewelry. So everybody can get a ton, but only i get the maximum profit. So, profit is viable in any environment.

Well, that's quite a fallacy there. If everyone can get a ton of gold, certainly more people than you could make jewelry. If they couldn't, the resources wouldn't be distributed! You would have to have some monopoly on jewelry making machinery, or we'd be living in a world where only one person could magically provide a service and no one else.

Think about it.

Innovation isn't the sole purveyor of profit. This is why patent laws are necessary. Because innovation can be cloned infinitely, destroying any possible profitablity along with it.

soph · 2003-01-13 16:19:29

It was an example. I was making a point. Fine, you are the only computer scientist on mars, and you have silicon. Insert the rest of the jewelry story here.

Actually, there is enforcement online. There are rules about what can and cannot be posted, and so on. The internet is very ordered. There are internet cops all over.

But the reason for the explosion of the internet has been the promise of profit, at least as much as the promise of progress. But that doesnt fit into the anarchic ideals, does it?

Bill White · 2003-01-13 17:09:41

Josh writes -

The concept is exactly the same as before. Except in this case you aren't allowed to control property you don't live on, mainly due to the fact, that, well, you're not sleeping on that property and it's not being used by yourself directly. You're making other people pay you to use property which is yours only by contract.

This reminds me of a story my wife told me. When she was an undergraduate (long ago!) she was fortunate to study for a semester in London.

One day she met a family visiting London from Northern Ireland - but just for the day. Lots of travel for a simple day trip. They told her they dare not stay overnight because squatters would move into their home and it would take several months for law enforcement to evict them.

Having been raised in Illinois, USA - my wife was aghast.

Hernando de Soto makes a similiar point to Josh, only with the reverse conclusion. Precisely because the 3rd World lacks the mechanisms to promptly enforce property rights people cannot engage efficiently in economic production. A skilled restaurant owner in Lima Peru dare not open a 2nd location because he cannot be personally present to prevent embezzlement or outright appropriation by squatters.

Electric utilities will not run power lines to houses and apartments because there exists NO reliable means to collect payment for service. No safe, secure, efficient banking system means no electric grid or gas service. Cash and carry is staggeringly inefficient.

Secure property rights allows traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to buy or sell a million hogs by twitching a finger whilst in the 3rd World each hog is sold one at a time and the owne dare not allow any hog out of his or her sight.

A system that does not allow free and secure trade in property will always be less wealthy - very much less wealthy - that one which allows trade.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-13 17:10:19

Whatever point you were trying to make, it was wrong. Because as you even pointed out, for your system to work, there would have to be an unequal distribution of resources (when we talk resources, we aren't just talking raw goods, but also raw utilities, and capital).

And nope, I can set up a server on my own computer. Indeed, I have a wiki at my home computer (it mirrors the NewMars wiki, I use it for testing). I am sovereign with my wiki, just like Adrian is on the NewMars wiki. Just because there are police everywhere doesn't mean that the internet is structured like an anarchy. Decentralized. Most nodes route data freely, and so on. At the protocol level everyone is equal, it only becomes different at the service level, where access to porn sites is prevented and so on.

And though it may be true that the expansion of the internet was based on profit, might you look at the things which are most popular on the internet? Look at Apache, for example. A free webserver. Everyone uses it. Perl, the thing which this very forum runs on, is free. Heck! This forum itself! (Though I'm not sure if Adrian paid for the full version.)

Nope, it's anarchy alright. Just because there are different motivations within it, it's still anarchy on a whole lot of levels.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-01-01 11:18:34

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#27 2003-01-01 11:34:13

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#28 2003-01-01 15:56:18

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#29 2003-01-01 15:58:23

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#30 2003-01-01 19:20:02

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#31 2003-01-02 10:35:18

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#32 2003-01-02 11:18:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#33 2003-01-02 16:59:39

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#34 2003-01-03 15:13:02

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#35 2003-01-05 06:38:22

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#36 2003-01-05 06:51:15

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#37 2003-01-05 07:08:16

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#38 2003-01-05 07:14:40

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#39 2003-01-05 07:42:43

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#40 2003-01-05 20:53:48

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#41 2003-01-05 22:59:00

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#42 2003-01-06 04:28:34

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#43 2003-01-06 12:05:06

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#44 2003-01-06 14:38:42

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#45 2003-01-06 22:46:25

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#46 2003-01-13 13:39:21

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#47 2003-01-13 16:12:50

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#48 2003-01-13 16:19:29

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#49 2003-01-13 17:09:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#50 2003-01-13 17:10:19

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Board footer