/liberty/ - Liberty

>authority codified into law not OK

it is ok as long as it is voluntary

>>77654

A rule of law should have a mutual agreement between both side of the group, not by the government with bias support authority or majority. Any disagreement should be dealt with court order which you have your own private lawyer to defend your right.

>>77667

>Any disagreement should be dealt with court

Great now the court is the real government,

>>77668

That's not an argument fag.

>>77668

Мaybe "any" is a bit too much. Most minor cases don't require more than a single attorney to settle the dispute. Or there might be no need for a specialist at all. Court order repeals still exist as well.

You could just have mob rule and might makes right instead of a market in dispute settlement. Your choice, your responsibility.

>>77671

At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision. That was never a problem to ancaps. What matters is not so much who makes this decision (anyone can in theory) but whether this decision is in line with the natural law. If it is, then it is a just decision. Technically, you could have only one omniscient bureaucracy dealing with any crime or contract breach and it could still be Rothbardianism if this bureaucracy was only upholding the natural law, which includes not taking taxes and not having a legal monopoly of force.

It is only mainstream political theory that has such an unhealthy focus on "who" makes a decision and "how" without looking at "what" the decision is. We didn't have this obsession with procedures and competences until relatively recently. To see it exemplified, look at how modern legal theorists sperg out when you mention the right to resist the state, and compare it to how smoothly and easily natural law theorists, from the scholastics to the Founding Fathers, handled it.

>>77671

What anime

>>77672

>but whether this decision is in line with the natural law

Making a decision in line with natural law means they use whatever force they want and if they get you submit they have the mandate of heaven. Property rights are a violation of natural law as soon as they misaligned with actual control.

>>77684

idk I found it posted somewhere here

>>77687

>Making a decision in line with natural law means they use whatever force they want and if they get you submit they have the mandate of heaven

No, it means they use whatever force they want and if it's in line with the natural law, then they have the metaphorical mandate of heaven. What you're describing is them making a decision that is only seemingly in line with the natural law. Big difference, unless you purposely refuse to look at the substance of decisions and only look at the procedures through which we arrive at them.

>>77696

If they WIN, they are enforcing natural law, if they LOSE, they are subjected to it.

Because one can not have authority over what they do not own. It is a violation of property exercise your authority over things which do not belong to you. It is only when the person has given you ownership to you over their property do such laws become legitimate. Simply writing down something on a piece of paper doesn't give you authority over possessions.

>>77700

>Simply writing down something on a piece of paper doesn't give you authority over possessions.

I agree which is why the only thing which can properly be called property is that which you have authority over. Should someone else have the authority of a particular item it is their property not yours.

>>77654

>authority derived from ownership and control of resources is

With the current conception of ownership it isn't, which is why we need to prevent the state from enforcing property rights of any sort. The thing is, ending institutionalized enforcement of property rights doesn't change the reality of ownership. You might think you're entitled to the shirt I'm wearing, but good luck getting it from me in one piece without offering something in exchange. It does, however, prevent someone from saying "I own your house because of this piece of paper that says so," and then getting the police that you pay for to throw you out of the house that you live in. If he wants to enforce his contracts, he'll have to pay for his own muscle, instead of forcing you to foot the bill for your own oppression.

>>77705

>which is why we need to prevent the state from enforcing property rights of any sort

Spooks are not something to be purged from the world. That mindset itself is spooked. You recognize the world as it is and operate.

>>77707

If you had a point, I'm not seeing it.

>>77667

Oh, so I just need to out bid the better lawyer. What a utopia!

>>77711

>which is why we need to prevent the state from enforcing property rights of any sort

is spooked

>>77727

>The idea that the state shouldn't be subsidizing baseless property rights claims is a spook and spooks are good, so therefore we need a state to enforce unenforceable claims of ownership

Yeah, I still don't get it.

>>77730

> and spooks are good,

I don't follow

>so therefore we need

A very spooked claim there.

>we need a state to enforce unenforceable claims of ownership

The state is enforcing ownership. That's all there is to say.

>>77731

>being spooked enough to consider replying to what others think

>being spooked enough to think other people exist

>being spooked enough to think

>>77738

>being spooked enough to consider replying to what others think

I agree its retarded of me I am addicted.

>being spooked enough to think other people exist

I agree on this one. Other people don't exist.

>being spooked enough to think

also on this one

>>77769

I doubt your supposed authority will hold when the police arrive when the landlord calls them.

>>77767

Law AKA whoever has the natural authority to impose there will.

>>77657

How is law in a democracy not (on the surface) voluntary?

>>77796

>everyone around you voted for it so when you get executed it was voluntary

>>77797

>>77799

Well, I'm never going to agree with anyone's private property rights, so private property can never be voluntarily maintained.

Checkmate /liberty/

>>77804

You dont have to agree to any property rights you can just start fights and eventually get lynched for being a nuisance

>>77809

>gang rape is consentual because it's almost unanimous

I love the pathology of the fascist liberalists.

>>77804

>I never agreed that you had rights

What?

>>77804

It's not derived solely from voluntary agreement. Whoever implied it was either misleading or you're trying to make it easy on yourself.

>>77812

So rights aren't something to be agreed upon? What the fuck is a right then?

>>77815

An ethical law without which coherent social cooperation is impossible. You can choose to break it. Agreeing alone on something doesn't validate it.

>>77817

Aha.

Then what does validate it?

>>77815

>So rights aren't something to be agreed upon? What the fuck is a right then?

HOLY SHIT, that's scary as fuck.

First off, rights are not contracts. For contracts contain rights. That being, how could I come to an agreement on about something if I have don't have legitimate authority over the things I sign over. Without legitimate ownership, contracts would be pointless and have no legitimacy because how could I contract something I do not own.

Rights are nothing more than claims of personal autonomy, derived from self-ownership. They only exist in a negative context. That being your ability to act, insofar as it doesn't pose an obligation to someone else.

You have to right to speech, you don't have a right to a platform.

You have a right to sleep, you don't have the right to someone else's bed.

You have right to eat, you don't have the right to someone else's food.

>>77823

And where does this "legitimate ownership" come from, that is supposedly the foundation of rights?

>>77825

It's comes from the axiom of Self-Ownership, which states that you own yourself. As a result you also labor which you can trad with other people for goods. How we come to own things, specifically land in this cause, is through homesteading. That being mixing your labor with the un-owned land. This is how one come to have ownership over a home he builds in the middle of the woods somewhere.

>>77826

>How we come to own things, specifically land in this cause, is through homesteading

Well, practically no one homesteads anymore, and very few did in the past.

The only place people put their labour these days is in their bosses company for his profits, and there is really no place for anyone to homestead anymore. At least that the average person can afford.

And in the past, homesteaders could produce some goods to sell to aquire the things they cannot produce themselves, but no one can compete with the mega coorporations with their fancy computers and conveyer belts.

So my point is, what the fuck is legitimate property in capitalist society?

>>77828

>what the fuck is legitimate property in capitalist society?

Legitimate property is what you come to own.

>>77831

I don't get where you're confused at..

You asked "what the fuck is legitimate property in capitalist society". And I state possession you come to own. You can own possessions by trading or by mixing you labor in with unowned items.

>>77832

My question is: WHICH property that you come to own can be classified as "legitimate"?

At first with the homesteading argument I can agree, I think people deserve the fruits of their labour, but in capitalist society, we do not labour for ourselves. We are forced to work for a capitalist or starve, so all we do is expand his capital while only recieving a fraction to sustain ourselves. I find his property to be illegitimate because he has not "homesteaded it" himself.

I assume we can also agree property aquired by theft is illegitimate, but then where does the line of "theft" go? When the Europeans came to the Americas and decided that they own all the stuff, was that all legitimate?

Was Leopold the legitimate owner of Congo? Are businesses built on literal slave labour legitimate?

>>77833

>WHICH property that you come to own can be classified as "legitimate"?

We can classify legitimacy based on who has justifiable authority over such property.

>I find his property to be illegitimate because he has not "homesteaded it" himself.

What if he got it through trade with someone?

>>77836

>We can classify legitimacy based on who has justifiable authority over such property.

Yes that is the essence point I'm getting at: Who or what is the authority on property.

As property is such a crucial concept in both libetarianism and communism, this needs to clarified. And I feel that the libetarian argument always falls back on something like "natural right" or other vague stuff.

>What if he got it through trade with someone?

This really is a whole topic in itself about the circulation of capital, and I'm not very interested in isolated incidents, but rather the economy as a whole.

But yeah, there is no tangible exploitation going on in a regular trade, but the things they trade will usually not be produced by them, but by their workers, making it not their product to sell in the first place.

>>77837

>Who or what is the authority on property.

Those who claim it first. Just like how we pick an apple off and unowned tree.

>but the things they trade will usually not be produced by them, but by their workers, making it not their product to sell in the first place.

Has the worker not traded his labor in for the money he is about to receive (wage)? Meaning the worker has forfeited ownership over his labor in order to claim ownership over the money his about to get from the transaction. So doesn't the produced labor now belong to the capitalist?

>>77838

But there is nothing unclaimed in the world, and the descendants of the claimers now own everything, including the state apparatus to enforce their claims.

We're living in the monopoly stage of capitalism, and these 18th century romanticist ideas of we can just carve out our own piece of home is just not true anymore, if it ever really was.

>Has the worker not traded his labor in for the money he is about to receive (wage)?

He has indeed, but only because his labour power is literally all he has to sell to sustain himself.

And again, this needs to be understood in grand scheme of a capitalist economy - yes, some members of the working class end up becoming part of the bourgeoisie, but the vast majority simply do not have a choice if they want to sell their labour or not. They have to.

>>77842

Never did I contradict any of this.

BUT I'LL DEAL WITH IT ANYWAY SURE NP THX BUDDY FUCK YOU REE ETC

>>77846

>>77845

I MAY BE SLIGHTLY DRUNK BUT IDGAF

>>77844

>Pic related

Right, just because no one lives there doesn't mean it's not owned. And even if I technically *could* settle down in one of these places without property enforcing squads come and wreck my shit, how many of them could actually support a person with no income? Is the soil farmable?

I'm going to guess this is mostly pricey or useless land.

>Yeah, that's how we create things, it's how we survive.

Yes, we, the working class. The capitalists do not do this.

>Well of course, simply why should someone give you something if you aren't going to give something else in return?

Exactly! Get rid of the parasitic capitalists.

>>77847

ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE NOT SLIGHTLY RETARDED?

But for real, FUCK OFF with these stone age analogies. We do not live in the stone age where the most advanced tool is a spear.

>>77850

Wrong, the communists are probably the most historically interested on the political spectrum. The emergence of capitalism is obviously essencial to our critique of it, but your line of thinking is absolutely pointless here.

>man makes a spear

>then a bunch of stuff happens that are too complicated to understand happen

>2017+1-1 commies wanna taek muh prapartyyyyy

>>77848

>Right, just because no one lives there doesn't mean it's not owned

It's a likely chance it's not.

>Yes, we, the working class. The capitalists do not do this.

>Exactly! Get rid of the parasitic capitalists.

Capitalist are people that sell goods too you know.

>>77858

>Can people just go live there if they want? Can they build houses? Farm the land?

>I'm genuinely curious, not making a point. I don't know that much about USA.

I'm not sure, I don't live in the area.

>Hardly. They may personally handle large deals, but they are not on the floor selling the product to consumers.

We do have a subcategory in Marxist termonology called petit-bourgeoisie; capitalists that still labour amongst their workers in production, but their class interests are those of the actual bourgeoisie in terms of stuff like minimum wage, taxes and general supression of rebellious workers.

I personally don't care how a factory is ran. It's up to workers if they want to work for a capitalist or not. I find such arguments about the capitalist being important or not useless. It's not up to me to tell you how to live your life. All I care about is property rights. If a capitalist owns a factor then he can distribute it's use however he pleases usually in a form of rent.

>>77864

oop forgot to greentext

>We do have a subcategory in Marxist termonology called petit-bourgeoisie; capitalists that still labour amongst their workers in production, but their class interests are those of the actual bourgeoisie in terms of stuff like minimum wage, taxes and general supression of rebellious workers.

>>77864

>All I care about is property rights

But why? Why is this notion so important to you? Do you not see how monopoly over all the productive forces of society is ultimately fucking everyone up? Capitalists no longer even have to compete, their prices no longer match the production cost because they don't have to - no one is gonna undercut them.

Combine this with the stagnation of wages, constant cutting of welfare and a general capitalist economy that is running out of locations to exploit.

Life is getting shittier for the workers day by day and people refuse to recognize the problem being private property due to cold war propaganda.

>>77869

>Do you not see how monopoly over all the productive forces of society is ultimately fucking everyone up?

Monopoly? it's a competitive market. Also, co-ops are a things.

>Combine this with the stagnation of wages

Wages are determined by market forces

>constant cutting of welfare

Cutting of money being stolen is bad?

>general capitalist economy that is running out of locations to exploit.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

>>77869

<Do you not see how monopoly over all the productive forces of society is ultimately fucking everyone up?

>World hunger and PPP in third world countries are at an all time low

>Shit is cheap and the remaining hunger issues are related to logistics/economics instead of shit like war and productive capacity

>People are about 200x better off today than they were in the 70s, despite statist hurdles

No, no I really don't see your point since I look at cold hard facts instead of bullshit feels, and even with the state monopolies we're better off now than any commie nation ever.

>>77796

not everyoen wants to participaty in democracy

>>77869

>their prices no longer match the production cost

prices are determined by the consumer, not the cost of production. that's what makes some means of production not viable.

>>77869

>Do you not see how monopoly over all the productive forces of society is ultimately fucking everyone up?

Given that the most valuable and productive forces in the 21st century are ideas and human intelligence respectively I fail to see how one could gain a monopoly over these things without some form of Lovecraft mind slavery. The most valuable things I own are nothing more than ideas in my head.

We live in quite interesting times, it is simultaneously the easiest its ever been in human history for someone to rise from the bottom 1% to the top 1% (whats more is this can be done in less than a decade) and also the most punishing for those who wish to go through life as idle as possible.

>>77654

Daily reminder that Anarcho-Capitalism is the greatest oxymoron shill psyop in the history of history.

>>77926

A shame you can't argue your way out of a box.

>>77654

>authority derived from ownership and control of resources

That's not authority, though. That's just people doing what you say because they want what you have. You don't get to force them into it, and they can easily avoid your "authority" simply by going for things that you don't own.

If you want to climb a tree, that's fine; nobody can stop you. If you want to climb my tree, then I'll probably have some conditions.

>>77668

Depends. Are you using "government" to refer to just any institution that provides any kind of law, or are you using "government" as in "state", referring to such a legal institution with monopolistic coercive authority? In the former case, what you've said would be right. In the latter case, what you've said is patently false.

>>77671

>have final say and decide everything

They don't get to decide for you to agree to their terms. You can refuse a bad court and take your case elsewhere, if we're talking about the sort of courts that AnCaps advocate.

>>77699

That's not what Natural Law is….

>>77705

>ending institutionalized enforcement of property rights

Non-state institutions can enforce property rights, and you even begin to describe that situation later in your post. I get what you're generally going for, but the particular phrasing you use here is a bit of an issue.

>>77712

>Oh, so I just need to out bid the better lawyer.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You'd have to give that lawyer enough money to replace his entire remaining future career income and fund any future malpractice suits, and that doesn't give you a particularly good chance of getting your paid verdict actually enforced.

>>77788

I think the person to whom you're replying is describing himself as the landlord in this scenario… or am I missing something in your exchange?

>>77789

Edge is not an argument.

>>77804

The difference is that private property is not imposed on anyone else; it's simply what happens when you stop other people from imposing things on you.

>>77810

>guy rejects all government involvement in any aspect of the market, law, or life in general

>guy points out that if you make a habit of attacking people, you're likely to get yourself killed

>this makes him a fascist and crazy

You might wish to consult a dictionary.

>>77815

>So rights aren't something to be agreed upon?

That is correct.

>What the fuck is a right then?

"Rights" describe those actions which are logically consistent in the normative premises implied by their performance. The term "right" comes from the archaic phrase, to "have the right of it", which refers to when one is correct about something. Black's Law Dictionary defines a "right", in part, as "justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rules of law or the principles of morals." The text goes on later to say, "'Rights' are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

>>77825

From the logical inconsistency of the initiation of conflict with another individual. Should a person who obtains exclusive use of a rivalrous good without initiating a conflict in so doing, then anyone who subsequently breaches the exclusivity of that use has initiated a conflict with the former individual, and thus performatively implied contradictory normative premises, therefore making their action ethically inconsistent. It thus cannot be coherently justified. We therefore recognize this kind of situation as a concept abstracted as "ownership", indicating a condition of ethically justified exclusivity of use.

>>77826

>mixing your labor with the un-owned land

I disagree with this theory. See >>>/ancap/1003/ for details.

>>77828

>Well, practically no one homesteads anymore, and very few did in the past.

[citation needed]

>The only place people put their labour these days is in their bosses company for his profits

Not all labor looks like Communist pornography.

>there is really no place for anyone to homestead anymore.

Humans currently occupy less than 3% of the land surface on the Earth. States have made invalid property claims supported only by force and restricted the right of individuals to homestead the land, or even to use the land that they already occupy as they would like.

>what the fuck is legitimate property in capitalist society?

See my earlier comments.

>>77833

>WHICH property that you come to own can be classified as "legitimate"?

Rivalrous goods which have been acquired through means that do not involve the initiation of a conflict with another person. This is usually recognized as having two forms: "original appropriation" and "voluntary transfer". The original appropriator has not initiated a conflict because, being the first to appropriate, there was necessarily nobody else to even have a conflict with in the first place. Voluntary transfer does not initiate a conflict either. I generally recognize a third form, that being "identity".

>>77839

>But there is nothing unclaimed in the world

[citation needed]

> the vast majority simply do not have a choice if they want to sell their labour or not

False. They can labor for themselves. They simply value what they have to gain from selling their labor more than they value the idea of not doing so.

>>77842

I also find this theory woefully full of unnecessary and unsubstantiated assertions.

>>77848

>so much Marxist drivel

At this point you're not even trying to construct an argument, throwing out wild unsubstantiated guesses and communist catchphrases with no coherent thrust,

>>77849

The stone age analogy was an endeavor to simplify the concept enough for you to understand it. Manifestly this effort was insufficient for the task.

>>77851

>Wrong, the communists are probably the most historically interested on the political spectrum

>he says immediately after dismissing an analogy for using old terminology

>>77858

>Can people just go live there if they want? Can they build houses? Farm the land?

If not, it won't be capitalists stopping them; it'll be the state.

>[capitalists] may personally handle large deals, but they are not on the floor selling the product to consumers.

And how do you purport to know this?

>class interests

Gotta love these theorists who can't scratch their asses without committing an ecological fallacy.

>>77869

>Do you not see how monopoly over all the productive forces of society is ultimately fucking everyone up?

Begging the question. Property and monopolization are not the same, and in fact the consistent observation of the former necessarily prevents the latter.

>Capitalists no longer even have to compete, their prices no longer match the production cost because they don't have to - no one is gonna undercut them.

That isn't wholly accurate, but to the extent which it is, it certainly isn't the result of the lack of state intervention in the market; just the opposite, in fact.

> stagnation of wages

Wages are higher than ever. It's inflation that reduces the buying power of those wages, and that's a direct result of government policy, using the law to monopolize the money supply and over-issuing fiat currency.

>constant cutting of welfare

Welfare hasn't gone down either.

>a general capitalist economy

Have you looked at how involved the state is with nearly every single industry? What are you talking about?

>>77872

Also this.

>>77926

A stunning contribution. The rest of your middle school Rage Against the Machine Enthusiast Club must think you're the coolest.

>>77833

>We are forced to work for a capitalist or starve

False dichotomy. You could choose to be self-employed or rely on parasitism/charity.

>>77928

>meme flag

>>77936

If you took the time to type all this you're already defeated

>>78004

That's a funny way to admit that you have no argument.

>>78016

>saging

Very /liberty/ of you. I don't converse seriously over the internet because it doesn't matter here

>>77851

>Wrong, the communists are probably the most historically interested on the political spectrum.

No, you're not. You're simply not. You're just very proud about knowing all the standard narratives that we've all been taught in school, and call anyone ignorant who engages in the slightest revisionism unless it's in a way that sticks it to the Man.

Not just that, you learn history on easy mode. You try to understand every historical conflict as having an economic cause, and you're completely ignorant of religion and ideology, unless - again - it somehow pertains to economics.

There's exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, commies are not historically interested or knowledgeable on the topic.

>>77935

>That's not what Natural Law is….

Ah of course. You must mean the natural law where say muh logic and then natural selection kills you anyways.

>>78541

Does saging violate the NAP?

>>78594

no

>>78590

Please demonstrate that because something isn't, it shouldn't be. That is what you are saying.

>>78597

>Please demonstrate that because something isn't, it shouldn't be

If those laws aren't already a thing, they are not natural law.

>>78598

Please demonstrate. Preferably after you defined your terms. It doesn't have to be a textbook definition, just so I know we're thinking of the same thing.

>>78599

>Please demonstrate that because something isn't, it shouldn't be

I'm not that something that isn't shouldn't be.

>>78602

*not saying that

>>77657

Authority is the power of coercion, it's incompatible with voluntarism.

>>78720

This image is unbelievably Jewish

>>77654

Why is authority over things I own and worked hard for bad for me to have but good for my government to have?

>captcha: zog ltr

>>78705

>Authority is the power of coercion

for you

>>78727

This post is unbelievably autistic

>>78764

If I strip you of your authority, will you die?

>>78848

no