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

[log]

We have legal rights precisely for the reason that we own ourselves and our property. If someone harms us or takes possession of our property, we have the right to pursue charges against that person, whether they be strangers or people we love. If someone steals from us we might make the choice to forgive them and not get the law involved, but that will be our choice in such a matter. If someone abuses us though and takes advantage of our love and goodwill, most of us have limits that can be crossed, where we would have them arrested/jailed for something unforgivable -- even if they are family or friends.

Yes, I believe you are correct: the concept of rights flows from the philosophical foundation of private property - that is, when I am in the "right," then I win and you must accede or else you shall have force applied to compel your acquiescence.  However, "rights" fail as a model of conflict resolution, for the simple fact that while they assign winners and losers, they do not remove the source of conflict - the underlying threats issued to control behavior.  Thus we find ourselves "adding epicycles" of "rights" due to the contradiction between reality and our model of it.  There's always a new angle to try to gain ascendancy over others, and when enough people don't like it, we add yet another right, maybe, to rule it out.

[The Grand Nudger]

The source of conflict appears to be the property, not any given system of arranging it. As a model of conflict resolution, the idea of property rights and courts to enforce them is meant to head off low scale warfare and raiding.

[log]

How does the threat of self defense naturally lead to winner takes all scenario? Why does "if you must have what I have" naturally flow from a respect for private property of other ( including bodies) ? Essentially , you are convincing me you are a pessimist. I think success requires optimism. Hasn't Jesus made your outlook more hopeful? You sure are a half empty kind of person

It's not self-defense; that assumes the point at issue.  A man's life does not consist of the things he possesses, as it is said.

I'm watching society collapse into totalitarianism, preparatory for war - that doesn't leave much room for optimism.  Besides, it is an observable fact that diversity + proximity = war.

Well, the actual equation is diversity + proximity + fear = war, and that's where we get hierarchy from.

[log]

chimp3

How does the threat of self defense naturally lead to winner takes all scenario? Why does "if you must have what I have" naturally flow from a respect for private property of other ( including bodies) ? Essentially , you are convincing me you are a pessimist. I think success requires optimism. Hasn't Jesus made your outlook more hopeful? You sure are a half empty kind of person

It's not self-defense; that assumes the point at issue.  A man's life does not consist of the things he possesses, as it is said.

I'm watching society collapse into totalitarianism, preparatory for war - that doesn't leave much room for optimism.  Besides, it is an observable fact that diversity + proximity = war.

Well, the actual equation is diversity + proximity + fear = war, and that's where we get hierarchy from.

---

The source of conflict appears to be the property, not any given system of arranging it.  As a model of conflict resolution, the idea of property rights and courts to enforce them is meant to head off low scale warfare and raiding.

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

[Aegon]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

To some people, everything says something about atheism.  

[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)

[chimp3]

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

Or private property.

[log]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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