• New phrase

    "Im so hungry I could eat a gay hamburger"

  • I think

    they had their sense of values and independence, but it was more a sense of power and independence, permitting NAP violations, and less a system of mutually binding ethics. It was a practical system for its time and place, but has no bearing whatsoever on modern economic, technological and ideological conditions. I think between ourselves at least we can admit neither of us are vikings. Well, Smudge and seth might not admit it, but we can. David Friedman sure as shyt isn't.

  • Well

    without referencing the text, merely working from memory, old Pauly told those Corinthians that they, not ten paces from the christs death, within the shadow of the cross were already forming factions, judging each other on who baptized them, building out systems for all too human rewards, merits, exclusions and judging; meanwhile, some of them were fscking their fathers wives and going to Roman law to settle disputes. O, humanity.

    Well, can we expect to be better than those Christians? Neither yes nor no is a very encouraging answer.

    Love and peace

  • Magic

    .

  • Love it

    You forgot Bill3. He is a faction.

    This post reminds me of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians.

  • Why stop at 300?

    You can chalk up a million years to humanoid statelessness, if ethics and rights protection is no object.

    If however they are the focus, then all of my objections stand, and statelessness alone is of no value.

  • way of the future

    third power center........ center of balance. triangulation baby.

  • Well you should need not have gone through

    such trouble. There were laws of a sort of the tens of thousands of years of savagery. Point granted.

    As for the Norse, I head read much of their literary output as a young teen and always admired the culture and its ethos.

    But their story has no bearing on anarchocapitalism, NAP, or these intra-libertarian discussions.

    Once the icelanders began the inevitable, slow process of wealth concentration, the law passed onto the hands of owners.

    That process is today at a fever pitch, nothing like the era of Viking egalitarian / guild socialism.

  • If you got a lump sum

    refund of every tax dollar you ever paid, you couldn't afford a year of rights-defense outside state protection.

  • Like so many of my interlocutors

    you've given away the game to score a point.

    If anarchism is merely the absence of a tax enforcing state apparatus, and has no moral content; no ethics, no NAP, no rights enforcement, no freedom from coercion -- then you are free to it. Call it anarchism, if you wish. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion the DailyPaul has been engaged in.

    If this is the criteria, then Jan was absolutely right in characterizing the first half a million years of hominid existence as anarchy. If that is what you're advocating, fine. But realize it is of no interest to anyone who wants to pursue a social system that can sustain billions of people, not just small tribes at or near subsistence.

  • lol

    exhibit a. Compulsory Hreppur membership / social insurance / fees and dues / payments for neighbors' losses in fire, livestock death, etc.

    "The Hreppur was essentially a "club", although membership was compulsory for all residents of the "club" area. This monopoly status of the Hreppur can also explain why it was able to provide both public and private goods, or social and private insurance. By tying private and public goods a "club" may be better at attracting customers (Klein 1987;Cowen and Kavka 1990), although as mentioned, membership in the Hreppur was compulsory in Iceland.11"

    "The Hreppur was geographical in jurisdiction, while the Þing was not. Once a farm had joined a given Hreppur, its affiliation could not be changed. The farmer, on the other hand, could legally change his alliance to another chieftain, and therefore another Þing, once each year."

    exhibit b. Courts and hierarchy of authority up the legal chain to a final arbiter of disputes

    "The next step in the development of the institutional structure was the formation of the general assembly, the Alþing. With this development the whole population of the country began to become united under one body of law, referred to as "our law" (vár lög). At the same time the court system was becoming more formalized. Procedural rules embodied in a constitution were being established.

    ...First, the Alþing served as a Law-Council. Second, the Alþing served as the highest court. To begin with the Law-Council likely acted as a court also but after 965 the court at the Alþing was divided into Fjórðungsdóma, or Quarter-Courts. These corresponded to the lower level Fjórðungsþings, but were seemingly established at the Alþing, and the former became abandoned. The Alþing formed around 930, and the structure established in the period 930-965 remained more or less the same until the fall of the Commonwealth. One change took place in the period 1004-1030; the Fimmtardómur, or the Fifth-Court, was added. This court became the final court, in some respects like a supreme court. It became responsible for unresolved cases and procedural cases, such as cases involving perjury or the bribing of jurors."

    exhibit c. Jurors were appointed by chieftains

    "The establishment of the Quarter-Courts made juries more "national" in character, since now all the chieftains appointed jurors for the Quarter-Courts.17 Each Quarter-Court was assigned the task of resolving cases from their particular quarter."

    exhibit d. Majority vote rule at the highest court

    "The third level was the Fifth-Court, and in this court a simple majority was required for a decision."

    exhibit e. Centralized federalism

    "What emerged in Iceland was a form of federalism.20 In some sense this structure is centralized, in that by the 960s "Our Law" defined the whole structure and in that the Law Council could restructure parts of the whole system."

    exhibit f. Chieftains decided what the law was by voting

    "Only the chieftains had the right to vote to decide what the law was."

    exhibit g. Outlawry is a form of public sanction and penalty

    "...the penalty of outlawry is a form of public sanction."

    exhibit h. Official religion

    "The country was divided equally on the issue of religion, and yet Christianity was approved as the official religion in the year 1000."

    exhibit i. Legal regulation of sexual behavior

    "The medieval Icelandic laws....limited ordeal to cases of paternity, adultery, and incest or marriage in violation of the prohibited degrees of kinship."

    exhibit j. Exile from the whole country, and death (Outlawry)

    "A person sentenced to lesser outlawry was required to leave the country, the protection of "Our Law," for three years. Someone sentenced to greater outlawry was to leave the country permanently, and could be rightfully killed after three months.

    ...Both types of outlaws lost their property, which was distributed by the Féránsdómur."

    When a minarchist says a community should be able to expel a person, take their property, and put them outside legal protection (i.e., violate the NAP against them), anarchists claim this is invalid. But when Icelanders do it, it's kewl.

    exhibit k. Public funding of law enforcement beyond the amount of damages on the victim, paid for from the stolen property of the accused/convicted party

    "If the property of the outlaw was valued at more than the victim had a right to, complicated rules governed the distribution of what remained. The distribution of the remainder was so arranged as to provide incentives, usually monetary incentives, for others in society to see that the enforcement of the judgement was carried out."

    exhibit l. Public punishment of people for violating democratically decided laws

    "Violations for which outlawry was the penalty were both private and public offenses. The private element of the offence were dealt with through confiscation; public offence was dealt with by the penalty of outlawry. The public element of the offence was the violation of "Our Law". This is illustrated by the obligation of the plaintiff to execute a full outlaw brought before him;42 the plaintiff who refused faced the possibility of being outlawed himself for threatening "Our Law".

  • Thats a dif def than your

    previous comment, about hierarchy, taxes, above the law, etc.

    Also, not the def used by ancap, which is any group using aggression (force not in self defense).

    You jump from def to def of many words, so it gets confuzzled.

    Try this article,

    https://notendur.hi.is//~bthru/kafli4.htm#c

    Very detailed accounts of lots of violations of NAP.

    Compulsory membership, exile from the country, etc., bans on sexual practices.

    By equivocating on dif definitions state, you are able to jump between dif definitions of anarchism, as the term is used differently by different self described anarchists.

    One persons anarchist is anothers statist.

  • yet a new definition of state/stateless

    and round and round goes the equivocation merry go round.

    on the ancap/nap/voluntarist definition, not stateless.

    stick w one definition.

  • definitions again

    egad.

    the author's use of anarchism is not the same as ancap use. on ancap usage, the icelanders were not anarchists; mandatory membership in the group-gild thing, plus group-vote price setting, et al. the article is clear, and cites lots of references. we can't decide here who is right, but i have my suspicions that it aint friedman.

  • ha

    i dont even upvote me, let alone downvote u. non vote principle NVP

  • it wasn't anarchistic if the

    author and his citations are correct.

    You claim they're not.

    In either case, the system had murder, gang warfare and slavery as the justice system, which immediately led to rule by monarchy once communism was replaced with market prices and property.

    The rate of technological and social change in that era was a snalls pace, and the level of inequality permitted by technology far less than the modern capitalistic period.

    The population level sustainable by communal / tribal economics was miniscule to the state/capitalism.

    Not a good example.

  • Its true that

    small religious cults with lockstep behaviors, enforced by shaming and shunning, have implemented voluntary systems, as long as protected by involuntary states from external attack.

    But your assertion that technology has ever permitted all-voluntary systems is just false. Name one!

    Magwan, you're really not worth the time. Live in fantasy land.

  • always good to be

    clear, espec if using non standard definitions, or non standard snark. : )

    How was the lemonade stand?

  • country?

    sounds like collectivism... borders? what kind of anarchist are you.... whatever a majority says inside some artificial territory is binding on everyone?

    property is human labor + natural stuff...
    so if i don't mix my labor with the house i bought, it's not mine?

    you just tossed title / transfer out the window.

    did you mix your labor with the place you live? don't bullshyt me!

    if you can own someone else's labor + nature, via title transfer, than that definition you gave is out the window too, and people can buy any amount of stuff they want, as long as it's been combined with laor and transferred via title.

    this would mean you can own 100s of miles, if improved. if a small acre was not improved, you couldn't stop someone from squatting on it and taking ownership with any improvements.

    this contradicts your earlier definition that required the land be 'in use' at all times, regardless of structures/improvements.

    'will to dominate and subjugate'

    well, dominate and subjugate are different.

    owning your own property is dominating it.

    subjugating requires you rule other people against their will. which is it?

    if it's merely subjugate, then the problem is how to deal with individuals who encroach on the property you claim as yours. if they disagree with your definition, and you use force against them, you are subjugating them.

    so your property claims require that you, or some gang, subjugate violators of whatever area you claim as your property.

  • If you think

    Soviet Union or America 2060 is a more stable political unit than a nation, with common language and view of govt, you're free to that view. If you think thousands of small gangs with absolute power of their dependent clients, where money alone commands political power, is better than limited government, you're free to that view. I think those are mistaken views, and we're all entitled to our own opinion.

    You talk about your rights, yet free-ride off a government to protect them. On your own, you're easy prey. But you'll deny that because in your own mind you're rambo, and can take on the cartels and mafa. Can't complain, you're good for comedy.

    If I needed someone in a pinch to back me up, maybe you'd be better and fight harder than the average person. Thinking you're rambo is good when you're in firefight, but it's not good if you want to leave a long, peaceful life.

    We just have different views, and yours seems tied up with your identity, so what's the point in debating.