This is no strawman, you have used this term too loosely. There will always be a monopoly of force, yes. The question is in the direction and the scope this force may rightfull take. In your property only you may legitimately make and, unless delegated, carry out the laws you decree. In this way you are the absolute monarch of your estate.
When someone steps foot on your land, they are not your property - therefore you may not have the full extent of ownership. But that does not make exclusive ownership over property any less monarchical.
In effect, however, you do rule over other humans on your property, unless you have no rules, have never asked someone to leave and make no claims to ownership (in which case you can not call it your property).
Justin:I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessness
Knight_of_BAAWA: Justin:I feel as though I should point this out every time the term is used. The concept of anarchy is a completely human idea, and does not exist anywhere. The idea of anarchy is complete lawlessnessNo, it isn't.. Laws don't require a government.
My statement as a whole puts forth the idea that laws exist without government. Natural laws of a black hole for example, exist whether you know them or not. My argument is such that even in the absence of any form of government, laws still exist.
Justin: My statement as a whole puts forth the idea that laws exist without government. Natural laws of a black hole for example, exist whether you know them or not. My argument is such that even in the absence of any form of government, laws still exist.
Justin, for the true anarchist (not the bomb-tossing, rebel without a cause sense, but the actual philosophical sense), this is exactly the point. The status quo belief is that the absence of rulers there is also an absence of law, with people running amuck causing mayhem and such. Man cannot survive without a ruler, goes the prevailing wisdom.
The Anarchist's response is that this is not true. We do not need a king, or a parliament, or a president, or anything of the sort for the purposes of going about our daily business. People dealing with each other and developing customary law over time is sufficient. The State, being a monopoly over the use of force with the right to rob anyone collect taxes within a particular area of territory (and anywhere else, if he the ruler can get away with it), is both undesirable and unnecessary.
In essence, you are arguing in favor of anarchism, though you don't know it. True "anarchy" as the conventional definition puts it (never trust a "web definition" of an unpopular and misunderstood ideology) cannot truly exist, and what the term generally refers to is not the natural state of society in the absence of rulers, but rather the intensive period of violence that almost inevitably follows the downfall of rulers, as a people takes vengeance for years of injustice on the part of their rulers and their collaborators.
Still, I do believe you are correct with regard to land ownership. "Ownership" of land implies rulership over it, the authority to expel any individual with or without cause, to demand any terms for tenancy, and, in some places, even the right to shoot at people who tresspass. And in places where the state assures the security of this claim using taxes on wages and commerce, this monopoly isn't even balanced against the need to defend this claim (as under feudal land claims). I don't know where our landowning friend lives, or the terms of his "ownership" of land are. But just because the kink declines to excercise his theoretical authority to the fullest extent, doesn't make him any less a king, if there are those (agents of the state) who are prepared to enforce his will, should he choose to excercise it.
Indeed, I believe it is the necessity of protecting land claims against those who would disregard them in the absence of a threat of force backing it up that is the root of the state. The owners can be one or many, the claim can be large or small, but the moment a man starts using resourced derived not from his own labor, but from his claim over the produce of others inhabiting "his" land, to hire the muscle necessary to protect his arrangement against those who would violate his claim (chiefly the landless, but other lords as well), a state has been born. Of course, far more abusive is when he turns his hired muscle into robbers who claim a portion of his tenants wages... and STILL keeps all the rent for himself.
That is a questionable thing to say. In the grand scheme of things you might be reside in anarchy - meaning you have no rulers over yourself. But in the framework of your property you are a monarch - the single ruler. Unless, of course, you are in a joint ownership over property, in which case you would live in oligarchy.
Yes, your land is your subject indeed.
...
To darkness I condemn you...
It seems the anarchy would be the breeding ground of conflict. While I appreciate the fundamentals, I wonder if a society could maintain an anarchy (from both internal manifistations as well as foreign threats)?
Only to question - what happens when the market doesn't support the need?
Free markets work fantastic for risk/reward gainable equity. A demand creates supply.
However, in terms of a need for defense. Those may not be willing to contribute to a collective defense (for numerous reasons - costs, belief, etc.). None-the-less it may be neccessary. When does an anarchy face the question as to when to IMPOSE a need to secure the collective?
For sure I want my property and rights protected, but when the collective is threaten - then doesn't my neighbors interest become my own?
One could muster a militia - but that may not be enough. What happens then?
I don't know - but would like to hear the views of others.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." -Thomas Paine
This is discussed at length in The Market For Liberty, starting around page 128.
http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
I would think that in terms of a need for defense on the spot, would everyone in this situation not be armed?
At very least the majority of the country would. What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves.
Justin:At very least the majority of the country would.
What country?
Justin:What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves.
Every citizen not having to defend themselves.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Justin:What is a better defense than every citizen having the means to defend themselves. Every citizen not having to defend themselves.
Maybe it's naive, but I don't carry a weapon currently and I don't think that would change much even if the state 100% disappeared tomorrow.
MatthewF:Maybe it's naive, but I don't carry a weapon currently and I don't think that would change much even if the state 100% disappeared tomorrow.
I don't think it is naive.
liberty student: Justin:At very least the majority of the country would. What country?
Haha, well played. How about, what's better than every citizen of the world being allowed to protect themselves.
I don't carry a gun either, but I can shoot almost any type of guy. Knowing how is the next best thing to actually having a gun. Besides, there is a reasonable chance you wouldn't mind having a gun if you knew how to shoot and understood the ramifications of shooting someone. Something a lot of state sponsored gun toting maniacs don't understand.
LoL, that would be ideal.
How about this argument:
Government is needed to solve conflicts that cannot be solved voluntarily. Without this institution, one will have anarchy, i. e., civil war and ganster war.
alimentarius: How about this argument: Government is needed to solve conflicts that cannot be solved voluntarily. Without this institution, one will have anarchy, i. e., civil war and ganster war.
The word you're looking for there is chaos, not anarchy. Why exactly is it necissary, why can't we use other institutions to solve this problem. The United States wouldn't even necissarily have to totally die. The current government could become a "enclave" and keep order the best that it could, other organisations could also assist in providing defence along with any other voluntary agency. Any organisation wishing to prevent the theft of property or initiation of agression against others would be free to do so.
All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No."
Don't we need a system for rational procedures to investigate, put people on trial etc?
alimentarius:Don't we need a system for rational procedures to investigate, put people on trial etc?
Sure. But it doesn't have to be a monopoly or involuntary.
Stateless Law in the Highlands of Guatemala
But if people don't agree whether to imprison a culprit or not?
alimentarius: But if people don't agree whether to imprison a culprit or not?
Don't understand. Why are we worried about doing things people don't want to do? How would that be justice?
Doesn't anerchy presuppose that the culprit accepts his sentence?
in the face of border raider's like Vikings or a neighboring state, i would think that a wealthy person or coalition would raise and equip a mercenary battalion, equipped with state-of-the-art, or near state-of-the-art gear to provide an effective defense. of course, the cost for the region in question would likely be high, and there is the fear that the wealthy person or coalition or the mercenaries themselves would take over the region.
still, the vague prospect that a group could organize themselves and take over a region is vastly preferable to the fait accompli we now have.
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