RE: Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism
January 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm
(January 18, 2017 at 10:56 pm)log Wrote:(January 18, 2017 at 10:54 pm)Aegon Wrote: 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?
Quote:(January 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote: 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.