One thing that I have been wondering about is how property disputes (especially over land) would be resolved in a society made up of different kinds of market anarchists (ancaps/agorists, mutualists, and geoists, especially). Each group would think itself in the right, and would protest any universal decision otherwise. Any thoughts?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: One thing that I have been wondering about is how property disputes (especially over land) would be resolved in a society made up of different kinds of market anarchists (ancaps/agorists, mutualists, and geoists, especially). Each group would think itself in the right, and would protest any universal decision otherwise. Any thoughts?
I actually am a little stumped as well (aside of the usual idea of arbitration, but that would still have conflicts across the apolitical spectrum). I think the solution may lie in a meta-politics or meta-apolitics arena, or connecting small dots of commonly held ideas between the various ideaologies, and trying to build a solution there. I fear any immediate solution that comes to mind would re-hash previous solutions that would repeat democracy-tactics, and essentially re-dress a new climate with similar problems (like say, letting a computer choose randomly this, or randomly that, as a possible solution to anything, or having each ideaology elect represenatives, which would automatically be rejected by other ideaologies since it completly de-evolves such a polycentric system back towards what we have today, or risk such at least)Contracts & agreements could come into place as well, but that isn't a sastisfactory answer either.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I've been reading Carson's Mutualist Political Economy, and he actually deals with the problem here (towards the end of the chapter): by letting local communities decide which system they followed, and by having an arbitration system in place (simliar to your solution, Nitro). It seems like it may be the best solution to the problem.
wombatron: I've been reading Carson's Mutualist Political Economy, and he actually deals with the problem here (towards the end of the chapter): by letting local communities decide which system they followed, and by having an arbitration system in place (simliar to your solution, Nitro). It seems like it may be the best solution to the problem.
I'll definitley give this a read after some sleep, but the idea of letting communities decide which system is followed & having arbituation system(s?) in place seems to be appropriate. From what we currently are mixed-up in now, it seems to be the next logical step in de-centralization; I would imagine suceeding state's might either come before, after, or in concert of such communities developing. I should definitley start reading more than the ocassional excerpt of Carson's, though