-13 votes

Anarcho Ad Absurdum

Some fun with NAP and it's favored theory of property.

The absurdity lies in the property theory and not in the idea of non aggression. The idea of non aggression is common to pretty much all legal-ethical systems, it is simply a question of which system of property rights defined whether aggression occurs.

In this system, property is:

1) obtained only by title transfer, or
2) homesteading - with no limits on how much you can grab that aren't arbitrary
3) absolute, inalienable
4) defensible with any force
5) one's domain where one can commit any acts whatsoever
6) one's legal domain where no law holds unless agreed to by contract
7) a place where trespassers can be captured, tortured, etc. since they are criminal trespassers and guilty parties

We can call this the sovereign or feudal property theory, and if this is the property theory you believe in, it will lead to all manner of fun absurdities, of which the following are some.

-In such a system, aggression would be trespassing on someone's square 500 mile homesteaded kingdom to pick an apple, in which mercenary robocop armies from private agencies could descent from skynet to machine gun the hungry person.

-All enforcement of these property claims must be privately obtained by purchase, donation or maybe volunteer serfs...

-On the other hand, of 100 to the 850th power of people agree to X rules and force 1 person to adhere to those same rules, grave injustice has been committed.

-If people bought up the 4 spaces of land around my holding and built a tower of Babel around my property and cut my water off, I would be the aggressive party to climb over the wall.

-If I walked by a drowning person in a river and he grabbed onto my leg and pulled himself onto the bank, I could shoot him down as an aggressive trespasser.

-A person making gigantic bonfires in their yard sending flaming debris and ash through the sky can't be stopped - that would be aggression. But if the entire town caught fire, he would be sued in a private arbitration... or something.

-If ten adjacent properties that formed a square shared an outer perimeter, and a mob of violent freemasons was descending on the town, and nine property owners told the tenth not to permit access into the defensible square, and tried to stop him, then the nine are aggressors and the one is the victim.

-If one man homesteaded the entire earth except for the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and all the rest of humanity existed inside of Fargo, it would be aggression for them to force a redistribution.

-If a man was on his property torturing exotic ring tailed lemurs from Damascus for personal amusement every day, it would be aggression to enter his property to stop him and he would be entitled to shoot you down unless he had signed a contract with PETA/Blackwater corp.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Me too

Do you think giving anarchism a voice on this site will

A) Give Rand more votes

or

B) Scare away potential voters, giving Rand less votes

Ventura 2012

Ever since Michael closed new

Ever since Michael closed new subscriptions, I don't have a feel for who comes here to read the posts.

Just use your common sense

Just use your common sense this is one of the most widely read sites in out movement and bears Pauls name.

Ventura 2012

All of the above.

...

What is absurd is your idea of anarchism

Property theory isn't a defining point of anarchism. Ask an ansoc and they will certainly disagree with an ancap on property.

In any case the NAP is definitional to voluntarism, and as such property cannot be paramount.

Why?

Because you cannot force someone else to pay to protect your property.

Your definition of property implies and necessitates a state to protect it, so that cannot be anarchism.

In a free society you would be responsible to enforce your property claims. You will not be able to draw a line around the grand canyon and say you own it. You will not even be able to produce a 'deed' signed by the previous 'owner' of the grand canyon and it have any weight.

You could have guards surrounding the place, but then you would have to be using the land or otherwise providing enough benefit to society that you could afford them.

If you leave your bar of gold in your safe your ownership is fairly noncontroversial.

If you leave your bar of gold on a park bench is it yours?

It is yours if it is still there when you come back.

In a free society there will be norms of understanding property. What those norms will be cannot be predicted and will evolve in any event, but what those norms cannot involve is stealing from your neighbor to protect your property.

Whatever your idea of property is, if it necessitates theft ex ante it is a contradiction.

Which is one reason the state itself is an absurd ethical contradiction, a moral evil, and creates social disorder.

Precisely

And I note no reply from Bill on this

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Cyril's picture

I'm almost amazed that in 2014, one has to "make a point"

I'm almost amazed that in 2014, one has to "make a point" about what I regard as the obvious, like you just did.

Makes you wonder if this kind of arguments all revolving around the simplest notions of property is really coming genuinely...

1 + 1 = tomato, or what?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

jrd3820's picture

You have 50% of most contentious posts right now

Good job Bill.

You should get an award or something.

His posts are only contentious

because of the unchecked anarchist propaganda allowed here

Ventura 2012

"unchecked anarchist propaganda"

propaganda
: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

Any examples?

"Ron Paul is an

"Ron Paul is an anarchist"
"Minarchists are statists"

Ventura 2012

Which agency posted those?

.

What kind of non-sequitur is

What kind of non-sequitur is this?

Ventura 2012

The fact that a simple question

confuses you does not make it a non-sequitur.

Anarchists posted it. Is this

Anarchists posted it, which I already said. Why would you ask me which "agency" posted it?

Ventura 2012

Individuals posted their opinion

and you refer to that as 'unchecked anarchist propaganda'

not logical

Yes, blatant lies and

Yes, blatant lies and misdirections in furtherance of their cause. Read your own posted definition.

Ventura 2012

That was

desperate

K lol

K lol

Ventura 2012

I'm content

ious.

My only regret is that it's two and not three. I am at 199 posts. Will take a breather before 200th, and make it something memorable, neither contentious and baiting, nor pandering, sappy, sop to the mob.

What oh what will it be?

Gotta give your troll masters

Gotta give your troll masters time to come up with what you should write?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

zing!

.

zing? :D Low standards

zing? :D Low standards

Only

if you are anal.

BILL3 has 50% of the most

BILL3 has 50% of the most contentious posts right now....

Because they're interesting.

Do you want an echo chamber instead?

If everyone here at the DP agreed, it wouldn't be interesting.

Let's all pat each other on the back and sing happy songs.

If you're not getting down voted, you're not over the target.

Disagreement is an amazing thing. At first you totally disagree, and then God willing, the light clicks on and it's a whole new world.

Never put your mind in cement, or it will soon turn to concrete.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

They aren't interesting when

They aren't interesting when he repeats the same logical fallacies over and over again even though they have been specifically addressed multiple times.

The only echoes are HIS POSTS!

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

jrd3820's picture

Whoa

I love Bill, I was pointing that out to him because he always loves a good debate. That's all. It was a joke/observation.

Maybe purple would have been a good choice for the text.

Pink!

Pink!

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

jrd3820's picture

Salmon Pink?

Goodnight Zoo :)

Goodnight Bill, I hope you know I meant no harm.

Goodnight everyone else.

I'm going to the jam session now to say goodnight.

Of course

I never take offense. I'm made of stone. Soft, sensitive stone.