hello, one of my main concerns with anarchy is land.
Once the land is distributed, then everything is fine, but i do not see how it can be distributed.
By this i mean how do we go from government to none? What happens to all the government property and land?
Is there a "fair" way to do this, like having the land be sold to highest bidder?
looking for any ideas, thx
Schaden13:Once the land is distributed, then everything is fine, but i do not see how it can be distributed.
Schaden13:By this i mean how do we go from government to none? What happens to all the government property and land?
Very few people actually need land anymore. Under an advanced division of labor it is better to rent land on the market and produce what you are best at producing.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
you want the land, you claim it?
That seems very problematic when 2 people claim the same land
Schaden13: you want the land, you claim it? That seems very problematic when 2 people claim the same land
That is why we employ the principle of original appropriation.
hmm, i have no idea what "original appropriation" means.
Can you explain what happens to land or show me a link?
Schaden13: hmm, i have no idea what "original appropriation" means. Can you explain what happens to land or show me a link?
Original appropriation means that if you start using something and it does not interfere with anyone else's property, then you own the thing you are using.
This is sometimes called homesteading although that is not really relevant in a post-agrarian society.
i see, that could work well, or at least better then any other system i have seen
However, this leads my question to other property. Like right now a school or something might be owned by the government. I do not think you can apply the same principle to such a thing?
I guess the problem i am seeing, is that the government owns alot of stuff, so what will happen to it?
You see, i understand how anarchy will work once it is in place, the problem is how does it start or how does a society transition into anarchy?
Schaden13: i see, that could work well, or at least better then any other system i have seen However, this leads my question to other property. Like right now a school or something might be owned by the government. I do not think you can apply the same principle to such a thing? I guess the problem i am seeing, is that the government owns alot of stuff, so what will happen to it? You see, i understand how anarchy will work once it is in place, the problem is how does it start or how does a society transition into anarchy?
First you must establish a competing government that allows people to choose whom to appeal to for security and law.
The state, under competitive pressure from the market, will then have to sell the property it controls. How it does that is not our problem.
Stranger: How it does that is not our problem.
How it does that is not our problem.
Yet it is an interesting question.
I would support giving saleable shares to the taxpayers who paid for the property, in proportion to the amount previously confiscated from them. But I would not object to the employees being allowed to keep their jobs as autonomous contractors. E.g., a public school teacher is given ownership of his or her supplies, curriculum, and alotted time in the classroom. The building and the institution itself become "public" property as a stock company. Eventually, the people who are best fit to own both will buy the shares of the other shareholders and become the owners. I think that the teachers would be best fit to run a school, personally. So I would donate (or sell cheap) my own shares to the teachers, janitors, and anyone else who isn't an administrator, and encourage other people to do the same.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: Yet it is an interesting question. I would support giving saleable shares to the taxpayers who paid for the property, in proportion to the amount previously confiscated from them. But I would not object to the employees being allowed to keep their jobs as autonomous contractors. E.g., a public school teacher is given ownership of his or her supplies, curriculum, and alotted time in the classroom. The building and the institution itself become "public" property as a stock company. Eventually, the people who are best fit to own both will buy the shares of the other shareholders and become the owners. I think that the teachers would be best fit to run a school, personally. So I would donate (or sell cheap) my own shares to the teachers, janitors, and anyone else who isn't an administrator, and encourage other people to do the same.
What you are doing is creating a business plan out of a government enterprise that you do not own and for which you do not understand the market. This is no different from socialist central planning.
Schaden13: However, this leads my question to other property. Like right now a school or something might be owned by the government. I do not think you can apply the same principle to such a thing?
A school is no different from any other state owned factory. In theory the most just solution is to give a small bit of every school to every taxpayer, but in reality that is unpractical. The practical solution is to give shares of the school to the people employed at the school namely, the teachers, the handyman, the nurse and the cleaning lady.You give them the ownership and then you do not need to listen to their complaining as they realise they must lay off 80% of their teaching staff, because they teach useless rubish.
MacFall:But I would not object to the employees being allowed to keep their jobs as autonomous contractors. E.g., a public school teacher is given ownership of his or her supplies, curriculum, and alotted time in the classroom
How does it make any sense to say that those complicit with the state should be allowed to keep stealing from the rest of us after it is abolished? Would you say that the general in an army should be allowed to keep his weapons etc?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: MacFall:But I would not object to the employees being allowed to keep their jobs as autonomous contractors. E.g., a public school teacher is given ownership of his or her supplies, curriculum, and alotted time in the classroom How does it make any sense to say that those complicit with the state should be allowed to keep stealing from the rest of us after it is abolished? Would you say that the general in an army should be allowed to keep his weapons etc?
How does it make any sense to call it "stealing" if the business has been marketized, and former taxpayers recieve a share of the profit?
Marko: A school is no different from any other state owned factory. In theory the most just solution is to give a small bit of every school to every taxpayer, but in reality that is unpractical. The practical solution is to give shares of the school to the people employed at the school namely, the teachers, the handyman, the nurse and the cleaning lady.You give them the ownership and then you do not need to listen to their complaining as they realise they must lay off 80% of their teaching staff, because they teach useless rubish.
These schemes are unnecessary and inapplicable unless we somehow miraculously come into control of the state. What is most likely to happen is that we will form a second government that will compete with the state. We will not ever control any of its resources, but now that we have created a market for the resources it controls it will have to begin acting competitively. That means that it will sell assets to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds to pay off its liabilities, just like any normal business would.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap