No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Yes, it isn't right.

The only part where immorality comes into play here would be the universal (in an ACist society) of not aggressing others first. There are many details where social norms play a part- what are the rights of others? What are appropriate actions in response to a violation of NAP of various forms? When is something considered voluntary? What rights does someone have?

You are getting very hung up on individual words without being concerned with the meaning behind them.

If not avoided, at least someone who extreme caution was used when dealing with.

This still going? Have we moved beyond 'yeah I don't have any idea how the details will work out, they just will right'?

Moved a bit into some minor retardation, seems to have been cleared up, back to some misrepresentations and walloftexting, a few useful posts here and there in there. Doctor Zeus winning MVP so far.

OK I'm still confused. So sure, let's start at the beginning. In fact, if you don't mind, let's concentrate at first on only the making of laws, and leave the adjudicating and enforcing details alone for the time being. And if you don't mind, let's try looking at it from a different angle...

So look, and this is important... for a visitor or resident of ACland, we really need to have some kinda algorithm we can follow, so we can know how to follow the various law we encounter as we go about our travels and daily routine, do we not?

So how would this work in ACland?

We might need to go back even further. ACland would consist of lots of individual property owners. Each property owner could have rules about who is allowed or not allowed on their property, and what they are or aren't allowed to do on their property.

Do you consider these "laws"? I do not, I consider them rules, no different than I don't allow anyone to smoke within my house or let strangers in. Restaurants have rules about what kind of clothing is required to entire and I wouldn't consider those to be laws.

Then there is contract law, which is another matter. Contract law would help decide how to make a judgement when a contract is violated. It would help decide if someone was able to properly consent to the contract and if it is even enforceable.

But the "algorithm" is quite simple. 1) Are you infringing on someones rights? If so, you are "breaking the law". 2) Are you in violation of an agreement you made? If so, you are "breaking the contract" and recourse could be taken.

The biggest area of there is - what rights does someone have? And that's where social norms come into play. In a society where you cannot own land, social norms will say someone who builds a fence up is violating rights. In a society where land can be owned, social norms will say someone who tears down a fence is violating rights.

ILP, do you actually think anyone reads more than 5% of your walls of insanity? Reading your posts is incompatible with having a job.

And that's exactly why it's pointless to ever respond to that person.

And MD, why do you keep repeating your failed understandings of AC when you are repeatedly told that what you're saying is not correct?

Like this:

"I'm pretty sure that owner's property rights >>>> NAP, amirite? But that's old news."

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're told you're wrong. But you just totally ignore the fact that you're wrong and instead of asking and trying to understand what ACists actually believe, you blindly bull forward with your false beliefs and end up making absurd assumptions that have no basis in anything that anyone believes. Every post you've ever made about AC has been a total waste of time, because you don't understand the slightest thing about it.

The way you approach AC is exactly the same as someone who assumes that AS = USSR.

Fair enough.

And as others have said, good thread TomCollins. Once again, I'm not being sarcastic, best ACist thread ever! TYVM.

I'm glad you are trying to get questions answered - I got nothing against you and as long as it looks like you are trying to understand, I'm happy to help out.

Meh, I don't think he's quite *that* bad, although sometimes he can be that way. He just has an understanding and needs help to shake that, and assumes a certain thing. Of course there is a slight agenda to assume worst case scenario (lots of King Ranches that control everything, and lots of peons stuck with crappy masters), but I think that's his honest beliefs about what would happen. He's making some effort to understand a few things, so I'll cut him some slack. He's probably in the top 25% of non-ACist posters in this thread right now in terms of actually asking interesting questions.

Just wading around the thread now, pretty out of touch with it but...

Just 3 requirements, absent the historical aberration we call government:

1) The complete respect for private property, a social norm from which the social convention of property rights emerges. The "requirement" for ACland is simply enough respect in all orders of scarce goods to result in a systematic method of resolving conflicts and equally (or arguably more) importantly preventing conflicts before they arise. Systematic protection of private property allows for the formation of capital, which is essentially just the preserved means of attaining wants.

2) The first derivative of the above: voluntary exchange. Capital stock allows for voluntary exchange - two parties own something and desire something else, and they each seek to satisfy their respective wants by trading. Thus voluntary exchange is the mechanism for wealth creation. Two parties could not trade capital if they hadn't first secured capital to trade with (duh). Voluntary exchange is a requirement insofar as involuntary exchange violates #1 and destroys capital

3) The derivative of #2: the emergence of money. Money is what turns a society flush with capital into "capitalism" in that it provides a society-wide objective unit for which the infinite specialization and division of labor can begin to occur (through the elimination of the double-coincidence problem) and for which profit and loss can be measured, from which the objective use of the word "efficiency" can be applied to the satisfaction of human wants.

Do you believe in evolution?

Can you tell me exactly how each species of life will evolve over the next 100,000 years?

What, you don't have the details worked out, you just know they will right?

Is this really your objection to AC?