Completly arbitrarily. No matter what method you choose the same reasoning applies. You have no right to own something you didnt create and you didn't create the land. You're welcome to join the commune but we are going to have to knock your house down because it goes against our reasoned principles. Sorry. You're not going to enforce your arbitrary ideas of property onto us violently are you? That would violate the NAP.

yup. you are welcome to live in your state of complete chaos then, while I will try to reach some sort of compromise with people about how we can arbitrarily divide things between people and try our best to ensure that everyone is happy

Cool. Leave "your" keys then cos we're gonna need to use "your" bathroom.

no you. DUCY?

Because of your violent enforcement of your arbitrary property norms in direct violation of the NAP?

I dont think the following observations are controversial:

1: Human being don't agree even when both acting from good faith.
2: Humans often don't act from good faith.

So it given that, its like there is some need for an ultimate arbiter.

I have no idea what you are arguing anymore. But let me just make sure I understand our relative positions.

Me: People should work together and find ways to compromise, so we could ensure that all of property/land gets distributed as agreeable as possible to most of the people. If some people want to live in communes and share everything and others want to have private property, we need to figure out a way how to find a solution that both parties like. Given the fact that we live in a world where there are powerful interests that are controlling nation states with gigantic armies and nuclear weapons, this process will likely take thousands of years.

You: everything is arbitrary, nothing can be done. You have to do things my way, or not do anything at all.

arbiter? yes. ultimate? no

so there is no end to the potential arbitration then?

That solution is what you call a state and it will necessarily violently enforce it's will on those that disagree with what "most of the people" find agreeable. No matter that starting principles.

In fact we've already been through this process and determined that most people find it agreeable to take property off wealthy people in order to pay for things like a social safety net for poorer people and a socialised defence force. Obviously we have to violently enforce those norms on the few people who find it disagreeable but you've demonstrated that you're ok with that via the commune on "your" land example.

You said you did not want chaos.

In anarchy no less...

Right, so as long as everyone follows the NAP, ACtopia will work.

Uh no. The NAP is simply a buncha childish crap. If you use reason at all, this much is glaringly obvious. Any coupling of the NAP with logical reasoning brings only belly laughs.



LMFAO. This fool knows absolutely nothing about ACism.

He's got it 100% backwards. ACland is a strictly constitutional regime. There's a written and codified constitution that is the basis of all of AClands laws. Every single landlord, court owner, and DRO goon, would be forced to pledge an oath of allegiance and fealty to this piece of paper.

If only this fool had actually read some actually ACism. Then he wouldn't have virtual eggs all over his virtual face. What pathetic foolishness. But... as I've pointed out 1000x... ACers are the most ignorant, lazy, and un-curious buncha cellar-dwelling lusers known to the interwebs. The topic ACers are most ignorant of, lazy regarding, and least curious about... well, that would be ACism itself.

It always feels like ACist discussions are with mild schizophrenics. I was talking about whether actions are voluntary and your response is about how to keep the housing market in check?

Again, what I'm talking about is that in order to have property itself you have to be willing to violently enforce that property claim against people who aren't necessarily voluntary participants of your system of rights.

Whether a state handles the housing market better is immaterial to this point.

You guys all get that its not the non-violence principle, right? It's the non-aggression principle. As an ACist, I believe violence is awful, but certainly not unavoidable. Of course, I also believe an ACist society will have less violence than the status quo. But yeah, defensive violence isn't antithetical to the NAP, it's almost completely unrelated.

But "defensive" is a matter of subjective opinion, especially when we're talking about property. The ACist trick is to jump from personal defence to property defence without acknowledging the leap. You think you are defending "your" property but I think there is no such thing and in fact you are initiating violence by driving me out of "your" house a place I want to live. We're both equally correct.

NAP becomes moot tho if you can just be arbitrarily violent against other communities who dont share your specific values (property rights). We have a principle of non aggression but we are coming to violently take your stuff because reasons.

The US government uses defensive violence to protect its property (taxes) from those who seek to steal it. Agree or disagree?

ACist trick? Going back hundreds of years, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ag...nciple#History

But OK, any thing ever can have any definition at all. You could claim I don't own property. You can even claim I don't own myself! You can rape me anytime you want. Cool claims bro. But they don't really matter because that's not how society has decided to define ownership.

Of course it is a matter of opinion, but when it comes down to it, people like their stuff. So yep, you can go form your commune where you share everything, no objection from me. The rest of the world will have property, and will continue to excel as you and yours eat dirt for generations. And yep, if you come and try to "steal" (our word), your aggression will be defended against. And yep, we decided its aggression, because the entire world believes in ownership of property.

This is very amusing. Why, exactly, do you think there will be less violence in ACland? Or did you mean once a DRO monopolizes the use of force there won't be anyone left to stand against them? Or is it because competing DROs are just as likely to realize they don't like the people paying them and take their property instead?

No one agrees with this definition of taxation.

Horses are goats and apples are chickens adurrr, great conversation.

Less violence than the tens of millions killed by governments...hmmm..how could such a utopia ever be achieved, the bar is so high!

No DRO could monopolize the use of force in a place like the United States, that's something only governments have the vast resources to do. Too many guns to fight against from the population, competing DROs, etc. Even Bill Gates would go bankrupt in a matter of weeks if he tried to monopolize force the way the government does.

I'm not opposing the violence inherent to property. I'm pointing out that it is in fact the case. When the ACist (like LeavesOfLiberty did) wants to insinuate that all relationships will be voluntary they are ignoring that you cannot have property without having made the decision to enforce it upon non-voluntary actors.

So even Bill Gates can't afford to keep paying a DRO that specializes in violence. Why wouldn't a bunch of mercenaries just take over?