/liberty/ - Liberty

>>73444

>there was no private property before 18th century Western Europe.

Well a lot of land *was* held in commons.

There was definitely 'capital' but not many capitalists. People actually worked with their own capital.

There is no need to be difficult.

>the only reason why you can't open a business in Somalia is because there isn't a strong State to enforce your protection

Do you want to have your property stolen by bandits? I hope not.

>>73450

>Well a lot of land *was* held in commons.

>There was definitely 'capital' but not many capitalists. People actually worked with their own capital.

>There is no need to be difficult.

None of this changes the fact that private property is a very ancient institute. A lot of land was held in common? Well, a lot of other land, and of other production goods, weren't. No idea why some people get hung up on the land, but my educated guess is that this is the Marxist narrative at work, according to which capitalism is an entirely new and unprecedented system of production. According to whatever definition the people influenced by this narrative use, that might well be true, but not according to our definition. Of course, you can tell us why our definition is false, and why we must call ourselves "free market anarchists" or "voluntaryists" instead of "anarchocapitalists", but what you cannot do is substitute our definition of capitalism by your own, then refute "our" views.

>the only reason why you can't open a business in Somalia is because there isn't a strong State to enforce your protection

>Do you want to have your property stolen by bandits? I hope not.

Non sequitur. Why are our alternatives a state and rampant robbery? Why not anarchy without the bandits? Why shouldn't personal weaponry, combined with the right cultural and economic conditions, combined with the right legal framework, not be sufficient to create public peace? How does the state figure into this?

I have yet to see anyone give a systematic answer to that. Usually, what I get are deranged violence fantasies, or any of the more sober variations of the warlord-question:

>What's to keep a warlord from getting a tank and a nuke and demanding a billion bitcoins, or else he'll blow up the city?

What's to keep him from doing it now? If he's sufficiently rich, he can get a tank shipped over, he can acquire one of the hundreds of nukes that were simply forgotten, and then he can blackmail everyone.

>The state will stop him!

Why will the state do so? Because it has the resources? Compare the military and intelligence budget of some of the safest nations on earth to what's currently spent on private security. Because of the law? The state is enforcing norms Does the state have a special calling? Well, so do security firms hired to prevent warlords from taking over. Monopoly of violence? That's a legal concept, it's not even a legal fiction though, strictly speaking. The state must fend for having a factual monopoly on violence, which is the equivalent of legitimate private security firms and law abiding persons ensuring that they are the only ones using violence.

Quite simply, what is it? The reason why there's so much fucking around when someone brings up the warlords is because no one who brings it up is even trying to be consistent or systematic. Another topoi comes up as soon as the one before it is refuted, and it's the job of idiots like me to anticipate them all or be charged with not showing conclusively that a free society could fend for itself.

>>73452

I'm glad you're on this board, you say what I would have but a lot more succinctly.

>>73452

>Well, a lot of other land, and of other production goods, weren't.

'Not held in common' doesn't mean 'private property' either. Feudal lords *held* land but that's different from ownership. It was really owned and granted by the king (state) in a contractual relationship. The guy alluded to this in the video.

>Why shouldn't personal weaponry, combined with the right cultural and economic conditions, combined with the right legal framework, not be sufficient to create public peace?

Because the only force stronger than bandits is the state. States have often behaved like bandits (albeit bandits that also enforce law) but a *liberal* state will guarantee stable property rights and not plunder its citizens at random.

>security firms hired to prevent warlords from taking over

The product of 'being protected from bandits' can't be provided by mallcop

>>73462

it can and is in some cases

>>73463

Mallcop isn't strong enough for this, he has to call the polease

>>73442

>laws cannot exist without state

0/10

>>73464

is that why the richest of the rich are always drowning in private security, drug lords have their own and hired armies instead of the police ect ect?

>>73461

>Feudal lords *held* land but that's different from ownership.

Another non sequitur, and it isn't even consistent with the original point. The original claim was essentially that prior to the state, private property did not exist. The example you're trying to give here as though it refuted pre-state private ownership is a state-enforced scenario. Stay on topic.

>Because the only force stronger than bandits is the state.

[citation needed]

>>73462

>The product of 'being protected from bandits' can't be provided by mallcop

Why not? Isn't that, to some extent, exactly what they do?

>>73464

>Mallcop isn't strong enough for this, he has to call the polease

That's the law, not the limit of the market's capacity. They are legally prohibited from going further than that. This isn't helping your case.

>>73468

1. is to do with organisation

2. that's not really mall cop. they are rich and have very expensive interests. but if you think they would war their operations with bandits just to protect the local villagers from bandits you are wrong. it takes a government with non-financial incentive to undertake that.

mall cop can work as an accessory to a national police force, not as a replacement

>>73490

>Another non sequitur

i'm addressing the land which wasn't held in common which he implies was private property.

>The original claim was essentially that prior to the state, private property did not exist. The example you're trying to give here as though it refuted pre-state private ownership is a state-enforced scenario. Stay on topic.

the example is from a situation prior to the modern liberal state which enforces private property.

>Why not? Isn't that, to some extent, exactly what they do?

you admit below that they aren't able to fight bandits because of the law. try to get your story straight

>They are legally prohibited from going further than that

even if they had no restrictions and lived in ancap the bandits would be stronger than a random mallcop

Why do libertarians deny history?

>>73501

Why do Marxist revisionists still try to push the linear progression narrative?

>>73492

>Hurr land ownership encompasses all private property

>Durr private land ownership was exclusively a linear progression from feudalism

Daily reminder that Marx and Engels held the study of economic history back by an entire century. Stop moving the goalposts, faggot.

>>73524

>Hurr land ownership encompasses all private property

so what was the private property then? are you saying that there was capital and capitalists?

>>73571

Properly understood, yes, there was capital, and there were capitalists. Define these two, I'm going with the definitions given by von Mises and his successors.

>>73574

capital is a good that helps you make other goods

a capitalist would be someone that makes passive income from owning capital which they rent out

in the middle ages capital was owned by people who actually worked with the capital though they may have hired help. but the capitalist as an agent separate from actual production wasn't there

>>73580

Okay, kudos for giving definitions.

>capital is a good that helps you make other goods

This one is fine.

>a capitalist would be someone that makes passive income from owning capital which they rent out

With this, I have a problem. I would simply define the capitalist as someone who participates in the economy as the owner of a capital good. His role is functionally different than those of entrepreneurs and workers, not necessarily personally different.

Why this definition? Because the functional roles are important in classifying an economic system, not personal roles. Sociologically, that may well be different, but not economically.

>but the capitalist as an agent separate from actual production wasn't there

The capitalist is not separate from production, though. He enables it. You can isolate him from his capital, but that's like imagining steel mills to just exist in nature. When socialists talk about abolishing the capitalist, it actually boils down to uniting his role and that of the worker.

>>73596

well it seems like you agree that there weren't 'private property capitalists' even if you think there were still capitalists.

>>73571

>What is debt

>What is gold

>What are craft products

>What are food products

>What is metallurgy

>What is carpentry

>What is shipment/transport

Inb4 you limit your area of analysis to Northern Europe and use freemen and guilds as some sort of exception that proves Marx's rule. Europe had many competing economic systems between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. In Italy, there were economic communities centered around monasteries where people living in the vicinity would trade with the monks. This would later give way to city states which mirrored the Republican system of Rome, many of which were dominated by competing noble families whose wealth came from private trade and banking, and whose nobility came from either papal or HRE fiat, rather than a "divine right" uniting both characteristics. There were free cities in Germany. In the Byzantine Empire, the state was effectively the capitalist through the Pronoia system, where grants would be given to individuals or organisations undertaking projects either by request or state sanction. And at a lower level, there were craftsmen, farmers, and merchants trading goods between the fragmented polities. There does not need to be a single dominant legal system for the de facto existence of pricate property.

>>73624

what specifically are the items of private property

>>73597

Now, if only you could tell me why that would make any meaningful difference. Because I don't see one between a capitalist who works with his own capital, a capitalist who lets a loan worker or a disciple work with it, and one who rents it out to an entrepreneur. It simply makes no difference from an economic perspective.

>>73645

If you really wanna know: Ships. The captain of a ship didn't necessarily own it, and the crew was certainly hired.