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

[log]

Definitions

1. Private property is monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others.
2. [T]he state [is] any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

The agent or group that succeeds in holding monopoly control over resources is called the owner of the resources.  It is immediately obvious that private property is the state, renamed.

So defined, private property is a coercive relationship between agents, and not necessarily a relationship between agents and non-agents.

Moreover:
1. There is nothing in the definition of private property which limits the amount of property an individual or group can own.
2. Nor is there any limit to behaviors the owner(s) may choose to call "aggression" against their property and thus respond with force to eliminate.
3. In particular, the only real limitation on the contents of contracts between owners and renters is the enforcers' qualms, which payment tends to overcome.
4. In general, when contractural conditions for use of property are costlier than force, force will be applied and a change in ownership / regime may result.
5. Therefore, in principle, private property results in totalitarianism and war.

Against the definition of private property offered above may be asserted the "gainful use" theory of private property - which may be reduced to the notion that touching something first justifies threat of force against those who might threaten to touch it second.  Threat of force against agents with respect to territory remains, preserving the identification of private property with the state.

Murray Rothbard formulated the Non-Aggression Principle as follows:

No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

From the definition of private property, we can now see that this fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory is self-negating.  Private property consists of threats against others.  Without threats, there is no private property.

The upshot is anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is statism, renamed, only shorn of religious encroachments.  The situation is made even more unpleasant once we assert our bodies are our private property, but that's a subject for another post.

This post is properly sourced.

[vorlon13]

welcome, care to stop by the intro forum and saying hello ?

[log]

welcome, care to stop by the intro forum and saying hello ?

Sure.

[Jesster]

Okay. Good luck with all of that.

[brewer]

Hi log. (OMG, CL's gonna love your user name)

Um, I'm a little slow and dense. What exactly does the OP have to do with or have implications for atheists/ism?

And if you don't mind, which god exists?

[DarkerEnergy]

Definitions

1. Private property is monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others.
2. [T]he state [is] any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

The agent or group that succeeds in holding monopoly control over resources is called the owner of the resources.  It is immediately obvious that private property is the state, renamed.

So defined, private property is a coercive relationship between agents, and not necessarily a relationship between agents and non-agents.

Moreover:
1. There is nothing in the definition of private property which limits the amount of property an individual or group can own.
2. Nor is there any limit to behaviors the owner(s) may choose to call "aggression" against their property and thus respond with force to eliminate.
3. In particular, the only real limitation on the contents of contracts between owners and renters is the enforcers' qualms, which payment tends to overcome.
4. In general, when contractural conditions for use of property are costlier than force, force will be applied and a change in ownership / regime may result.
5. Therefore, in principle, private property results in totalitarianism and war.

Against the definition of private property offered above may be asserted the "gainful use" theory of private property - which may be reduced to the notion that touching something first justifies threat of force against those who might threaten to touch it second.  Threat of force against agents with respect to territory remains, preserving the identification of private property with the state.

Murray Rothbard formulated the Non-Aggression Principle as follows:

No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

From the definition of private property, we can now see that this fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory is self-negating.  Private property consists of threats against others.  Without threats, there is no private property.

The upshot is anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is statism, renamed, only shorn of religious encroachments.  The situation is made even more unpleasant once we assert our bodies are our private property, but that's a subject for another post.

This post is properly sourced.

The problem with any form of anarchism is that it assumes power vacuums can exist socially - they can't. Truth is, there will always be hierarchies in society, and people that want power will find a way to get it, no matter what the system is. In anarcho-capitalism we would simply have businessmen doing whatever they damn well pleased, without a government force to ever get in their way. The idea of a private police/court system is laughable, since the powerful would end up owning it. There are good arguments for limiting the powers of government, but they ain't in right-wing libertarianism -- they have utopian nonsolutions.

[log]

Hi log. (OMG, CL's gonna love your user name)

Um, I'm a little slow and dense. What exactly does the OP have to do with or have implications for atheists/ism?

Inasmuch as there is any theoretical foundation for a social order, atheism seems to have only one option, and that is private property - yet that very foundation negates itself by collapsing into totalitarianism and war, by the nature of private property: the issuance of threats to control others' behavior.  This seems to me to be a severe problem that atheists might want to pay attention to, in order to solve it - that is, find a foundation for social order that does not collapse into totalitarianism and war, and thus risk the extinction of the human race - as any order predicated upon threats and violence must so collapse.  If atheism does not afford such a foundation, and if an individual atheist would like something better than the world promised by private property, that would be a reason to look elsewhere for a foundation for a better world.

And if you don't mind, which god exists?

I believe in Jesus Christ.[/quote]

[Jesster]

Atheism only has the option of private property? Which atheism holy text says that?

[brewer]

Still missing it. What does atheism have to do with private property? And how is this different from christens and private property?

[log]

The problem with any form of anarchism is that it assumes power vacuums can exist socially - they can't. Truth is, there will always be hierarchies in society, and people that want power will find a way to get it, no matter what the system is. In anarcho-capitalism we would simply have businessmen doing whatever they damn well pleased, without a government force to ever get in their way. The idea of a private police/court system is laughable, since the powerful would end up owning it. There are good arguments for limiting the powers of government, but they ain't in right-wing libertarianism -- they have utopian nonsolutions.

Hierarchy is the result of fear, which is both an emotional matrix, an ideology, and a rule of behavior.  We yield to the strong because it's better than dying, ultimately, and we oppress the weak so that we may negate the threat they represent to our security.  Another way to put it is that we are trying to impose our wills on the environment and others in order to attain security, and it doesn't work.  The libertarians are simply consistent and clear in their reasoning, which made them a ripe target for disproof.