Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[Jesster]

After 6 pages I still fail to see how any of this relates to atheism.

I'm still not getting anything out of this, either, even after some questioning.

[log]

After 6 pages I still fail to see how any of this relates to atheism.

Does atheism have an alternative foundation for social order to appeal to in order to solve the obvious society-negating consequences of private property?

If not, that is a good reason to look elsewhere than atheism for a solution to the collapse of society into totalitarianism and war.

---

I submit that the source of conflict is actually the issuance of threats to control others' behavior.

Meh.  People rob pacifists too.  Threats need not be made for groups or individuals to fight over some resource.  

That is, we are imposing our will upon others in order to control agents as though they were not agents by use of threats.  But agents don't like being treated as non-agents, therefore they rebel.

AKA "some people don't like the rules"?  / shrugs

Threats or actual execution of violence.  People typically find threats to be lower cost than actual violence and will generally try them first.
With respect to your second, I submit that the social order implied here is kinda nasty.  Better hope one is on everyone's good side, right?

[Jesster]

What do you even think atheism is? Atheism has no tenants or dogma. Nobody finds any answers in atheism by itself because it is not a belief. It is simply a disbelief in gods.

I don't see how atheism would stop anything from happening. It can't lead anything to happen, either. This is why I'm confused about your claims and why I don't think you understand atheism.

Some atheists do follow certain beliefs or philosophies, though. I prefer Secular Humanism. Try reading into that. It can absolutely support many things in human society and it requires exactly zero gods.

[Aegon]

Are you advocating for the abolition of private property? Are you talking about private property purely in the context of anarcho-capitalism? (which is just as dumb as abolishing private property)

I am talking about the very conception of private property - which is monopolizing control of resources by issuing threats against others to control their behavior.  But this is another way of saying "threaten others to make them do what you want."

It leads to bad things, and foreseeably so.

If you have an alternative, I'd like to hear it.

I don't see how what you're saying could apply to the very conception of private property though. Without the state to act in favor of the majority, like in an anarcho-capitalist system where everything is privatized and the wealthiest would control the resources, then yeah. But if I own a home in a nice suburban town, in what way am I threatening others to control their behavior? Give me an example. Not an ideological one, but a real-world example of these sorts of threats that results from private property, say, in the United States today

[The Grand Nudger]

Threats or actual execution of violence.  People typically find threats to be lower cost than actual violence and will generally try them first.
With respect to your second, I submit that the social order implied here is kinda nasty.  Better hope one is on everyone's good side, right?

People generally find ownership to be lower cost than threats -or- violence......hence the value of property rights in conflict avoidance.  I risk less by buying a candy bar than I do by scaring someone into giving me one, or engaging in theft.

Those with no property rights must resort to theft and violence by default. IDK about you...but I'd rather give the man $1.00 and enjoy my chocolate bar.

[Aegon]

After 6 pages I still fail to see how any of this relates to atheism.

Does atheism have an alternative foundation for social order to appeal to in order to solve the obvious society-negating consequences of private property?

If not, that is a good reason to look elsewhere than atheism for a solution to the collapse of society into totalitarianism and war.

Haven't all major communist regimes been "officially" atheist?

Besides, I don't look for atheism for any solutions. And, uh, I think Christianity has been used to justify totalitarianism and war several times over.

[log]

I am talking about the very conception of private property - which is monopolizing control of resources by issuing threats against others to control their behavior.  But this is another way of saying "threaten others to make them do what you want."

It leads to bad things, and foreseeably so.

If you have an alternative, I'd like to hear it.

I don't see how what you're saying could apply to the very conception of private property though. Without the state to act in favor of the majority, like in an anarcho-capitalist system where everything is privatized and the wealthiest would control the resources, then yeah. But if I own a home in a nice suburban town, in what way am I threatening others to control their behavior? Give me an example. Not an ideological one, but a real-world example of these sorts of threats that results from private property, say, in the United States today

How do you own anything except you view yourself as being "right" in threatening people, and ultimately executing your threats, to control their behavior on or towards what you call your property?  That is an implicit threat against all others.

And have you never rented, and had the landlord change your lease terms arbitrarily?  And if you "own" a house, aren't you paying rent to the real owner, the state you live in, or the USFEDGOV?  And aren't they changing the terms and conditions of you rental by passing laws?

Same thing.

---

Threats or actual execution of violence.  People typically find threats to be lower cost than actual violence and will generally try them first.
With respect to your second, I submit that the social order implied here is kinda nasty.  Better hope one is on everyone's good side, right?

People generally find ownership to be lower cost than threats -or- violence......hence the value of property rights in conflict avoidance.  I risk less by buying a candy bar than I do by scaring someone into giving me one, or engaging in theft.

Those with no property rights must resort to theft and violence by default.

Or begging.  Economic exchange is when the parties agree, implicitly or explicitly, depending on the perceived damage should one party default, to not exercise their threat to kill the other for taking their stuff only so long as the other gives the agreed upon stuff in exchange.

---

Does atheism have an alternative foundation for social order to appeal to in order to solve the obvious society-negating consequences of private property?

If not, that is a good reason to look elsewhere than atheism for a solution to the collapse of society into totalitarianism and war.

Haven't all major communist regimes been "officially" atheist?

Besides, I don't look for atheism for any solutions. And, uh, I think Christianity has been used to justify totalitarianism and war several times over.

Yes.  Oddly, though, never by citing Christ's actual teachings.  They seem remarkably resistant to such efforts.

[Aegon]

I don't see how what you're saying could apply to the very conception of private property though. Without the state to act in favor of the majority, like in an anarcho-capitalist system where everything is privatized and the wealthiest would control the resources, then yeah. But if I own a home in a nice suburban town, in what way am I threatening others to control their behavior? Give me an example. Not an ideological one, but a real-world example of these sorts of threats that results from private property, say, in the United States today

How do you own anything except you view yourself as being "right" in threatening people, and ultimately executing your threats, to control their behavior on or towards what you call your property?  That is an implicit threat against all others.

And have you never rented, and had the landlord change your lease terms arbitrarily?  And if you "own" a house, aren't you paying rent to the real owner, the state you live in, or the USFEDGOV?  And aren't they changing the terms and conditions of you rental by passing laws?

Same thing.

Okay, what's your alternative?

People generally find ownership to be lower cost than threats -or- violence......hence the value of property rights in conflict avoidance.  I risk less by buying a candy bar than I do by scaring someone into giving me one, or engaging in theft.

Those with no property rights must resort to theft and violence by default.

Or begging.  Economic exchange is when the parties agree, implicitly or explicitly, depending on the perceived damage should one party default, to not exercise their threat to kill the other for taking their stuff only so long as the other give the agreed upon stuff in exchange.

That does not happen in a civilized society though. If I steal candy from a store, the owner isn't going to shoot me. In all likelihood he'll probably just let me go, but otherwise he may call the police and report a theft. What's the threat there? The use of police force? Is it not justified? I probably wouldn't face too serious of consequences for stealing a candy bar.

[log]

How do you own anything except you view yourself as being "right" in threatening people, and ultimately executing your threats, to control their behavior on or towards what you call your property?  That is an implicit threat against all others.

And have you never rented, and had the landlord change your lease terms arbitrarily?  And if you "own" a house, aren't you paying rent to the real owner, the state you live in, or the USFEDGOV?  And aren't they changing the terms and conditions of you rental by passing laws?

Same thing.

Okay, what's your alternative?

Or begging.  Economic exchange is when the parties agree, implicitly or explicitly, depending on the perceived damage should one party default, to not exercise their threat to kill the other for taking their stuff only so long as the other give the agreed upon stuff in exchange.

That does not happen in a civilized society though. If I steal candy from a store, the owner isn't going to shoot me. In all likelihood he'll probably just let me go, but otherwise he may call the police and report a theft. What's the threat there? The use of police force? Is it not justified? I probably wouldn't face too serious of consequences for stealing a candy bar.

My alternative is the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospels.

And in the so-called "civilized society," the state controls such things by issuing - yes, you guessed it - threats against everyone to control their conduct, even unto death if deemed necessary.  If Willy Wonka was in the Old West, he might well shoot thieves. And I don't know about justification - that depends on one's moral foundation. But that's precisely what's at issue in this thread: the moral foundation of social order.

[Aegon]

Okay, what's your alternative?


That does not happen in a civilized society though. If I steal candy from a store, the owner isn't going to shoot me. In all likelihood he'll probably just let me go, but otherwise he may call the police and report a theft. What's the threat there? The use of police force? Is it not justified? I probably wouldn't face too serious of consequences for stealing a candy bar.

My alternative is the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospels.

And in the so-called "civilized society," the state controls such things by issuing - yes, you guessed it - threats against everyone to control their conduct, even unto death if deemed necessary.  If Willy Wonka was in the Old West, he might well shoot thieves.  And I don't know about justification - that depends on one's moral foundation.  But that's precisely what's at issue in this thread: the moral foundation of social order.

Be more specific please. "Love thy neighbor like you love thyself" isn't a suitable replacement for the rule of law. I want details on how Jesus can replace capitalism.