How was I treating them similar? Missledog brought it up, I suspect, to try and sneak in the rent/interest argument and how they aren't "voluntary contracts" and how people are "forced" to working a particular job, and so on and so forth.

Such loose usages of the words “coercion,” “duress,” or “being forced” can usually be traced to a confused idea about what it is to do harm, hurt, or inflict a sanction. For example, when we hear that someone was “forced” to accept an offer or enter into an arrangement because he had “no alternative,” what is really being described is a case where the person finds that none of his existing options are anywhere as good as the new one he is being offered. It is not a case of coercion.

I cannot readily think of an instance where it would be illegitimate (if we are speaking about a voluntary relation between two people, that is).

War is the phenomenon of organized violent conflict. Defaulting on a contract doesn't necessarily involve the use of organized violence.

I was simply commenting that the "legitimacy" of war itself is an entirely other sticky subject.

Yeah, like I said, I wasn't reading everything other people were writing, and wasn't sure whether you thought there was a distinction. Since you do (e.g., as in the part of this post that I didn't quote), the rest of your reply (which is directed more at employment contracts than hunting humans) is not really that striking.

I'll save further discussions of "voluntary", "legitimacy" and "war" for another time.

Ok.

I haven't read beyond this last post yet, so maybe this has already been addressed, but here goes.

I think you've all addressed relevant forces and costs. To get a full picture, though, we need to look at how these might cause social institutions to evolve.

While it's true that your average contract in corporate America is long, it's also the case that employees don't need to be as diligent in reading them as the length might suggest. Courts have evolved a variety of doctrines and presumptions about contracts that protect many basic "rights" (I use the term here in the positive sense, referring simply to those things that have been recognized as worthy of protection). Regardless of what the contract says, your employer simply cannot violate these rights, and you might care very little about the other technicalities of the contract. And when a contract is not specific about a certain definition or leaves certain contingencies undealt with, a collection of presumptions guides the courts' interpretation. The former is partially driven by the rational that no reasonable mind would voluntarily agree to such terms, the latter by the rational that contracts are inherently limited documents, and some outside mutual understanding must govern those scenarios and definitions that are not explicitly laid out. At the same time, both interpretative guidelines are driven by a sense of redistributive fairness, where judges (who are, after all, human beings) decide that one party should be given the benefit of the doubt.

If you are going to take seriously the notion of a voluntary contract, you have to believe that certain disclosures need to be made, otherwise we assume that those terms have not been consented to. And, in response to Nielso's questions, I think the starting point for this list absolutely needs to be anything that causes people subjective harm. There is no reason that I can grasp that we should categorically remove harms not related to physical or spacial property (or we can reframe it, our subject awareness of harm is caused by physical activity within our brain, over which we have exclusive dominion, allowing emotional harm to fall under the same umbrella as vandalism or assault). At the same time, we want individuals to be free to act for their own moral well-being and for the economic benefit of others. Thus our social institutions, from the informal and intimate to the formal and legal, do not recognize all harms as redressable.

In the context of privacy, I think the analysis goes as follows:

1. There is a general social discomfort about violations of privacy, which grows more severe as the violation encroaches on more intimate personal information. Where I am matters less than what I look like in the bathroom or what I do in my bedroom. I am psychologically harmed by having my employer know this information about me.

2. Nonetheless, it is economically efficient for employers to be able to know certain information about their employees. So we will allow for certain forms of monitoring and breaches of privacy to occur, so long as it is voluntarily agreed upon. Other forms are so repugnant to society that we will simply not stand for it, on the grounds that the economic and moral benefits are far outweighed by the harm caused to a party who unwittingly "agrees" to be subjected to certain conditions.

3. Lastly, and most interestingly, where should the presumption lie? Beyond the moral implications, this can be viewed as a property issue. An individual employer and an individual employee would both pay some sum >$0 to have this question resolved their way. In the absence of transaction costs and with perfect information, it wouldn't matter which way the presumption fell (Coase), but such is not the world we live in. So we need to know how much more money the employee would have asked for with knowledge of the term (thus, any common cultural practices within an industry will not increase the cost of the contract because they will already be known about, whereas the use of some cutting edge spying technology will generally drive the price up). On the other hand, we consider the transactional costs related with the burden of disclosure. The employee uses time reading a certain term. The company lawyers use time drafting the term. A contract which is too long is actually unwieldy because few will read it, undermining the goal of providing more information. Where the former price is higher than the latter cost, explicit disclosure should be made.

So we have three tiers: contract terms that we will never enforce because they are too unconscionable, contract terms we will only enforce if made explicit, and freedoms that we simply leave to the parties absent explicit denial. Which tier a specific right should go into is an empirical question, peculiar to a particular historical moment and inherently tied into the cultural and economic context.

Then arises the question of how to "enforce." Some have argued that "market forces" offer a proper buttress against this because people will refuse to work for or, presumably, do business with, companies that act this way. This can be interpreted in two ways: that the market activity of choosing not to conduct business with a given firm is sufficient, or that the market will evolve institutions that actively use force to enforce these interpretive rules. The former is an empirically shaky proposition as things stand. Most consumers express little interest in learning about the human rights (here used normatively) abuses that allow them to purchase goods and services on the cheap. This is how forms of near or true slavery continue to exist around the world. Similarly, people have been signing mortgage contracts for years now with complex mathematical formulas for repayment rates, and they do so because their loan originator explains that it is a good idea, that the value of the house will rise, and so forth. Voluntary transactions thus may not be the most effective of culling out undesirable practices.

The second interpretation is more interesting. I do think, contrary to vixicator, that an ACist society would, over time find efficient methods of enforcing certain values (or at least the values of those for whom the enforcers act and from whom they draw their moral authority). Although I agree with AKSpartan that employees would be unlikely to draft their own contracts, one can easily picture an employee-side legal firm (or union) that drafts its own boilerplate contracts that can easily be purchased or otherwise provided. If it is generally the case that a society wants certain rights protected, it will either happen through the courts by fiat or through alternate means such as this "contract exchange" or a GPS checker as others in this thread have discussed. What we want is the most efficient way of enforcing these values.

However, we must be mindful that it takes time for institutions to evolve. Changes of rules are a form of information that propagate through society in a fashion that privileges certain individuals above others, and allows them to extract rent from those who are not yet aware. So we shouldn't (in my view) immediately withdraw legal protections that many rely on simply because we can imagine alternate means of enforcing rights.

While this answers nothing, I hope it's at least worthwhile.

Admittedly, I don't know much about AC, which is why I asked. First, I don't see how aggressive acts would be sufficiently disincentivized without law enforcement and courts. Assuming aggressive actions (that qualify as such in ac) don't happen, there are still plenty of bad things that could happen to me when someone rich/powerful wants to harm me. Like ruining my reputation. Second, I don't think a real free market prevents monopolies from arising, though this (and my other concerns) is probably a point that has been discussed many times here..
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Assuming 2211 is not a typo, that. I want to travel the galaxy!

I actually have quite a bit to blog about the several of the poasts here, and my friend Montius, I am not ignoring the many good points you have made, since last time I promised to attempt to discuss them. I got no interwebs at the beach house, for reasons that I am annoyed to not be able to explain. Also instead of burying you folks in a wall of text, and having people possibly miss theQuiteDudes well written poast above, I will just blog a little taste of what I was thinking...

And let's talk about the claims regarding redistribution made by people who seem to subscibe to Libertarian (&etc) core beliefs here. The first quote is from this thread... First of all, we can all agree that Libertarians (&etc) actively want to redistribute power, and they want that reshuffling of power relationships to necessarily change the patterns of how the output of society's production is allocated? In the words of Montius, Libertarians (&etc) want the stuff of those they consider "claiming through politics" redistributed to those they consider "denied [them] by economics". And they want this redistribution enforced by violence when necessary.

If we can't agree that Libertarianism (&etc) is a fundamentally a philosophy of redistribution then you can ignore the rest of this poast.

Once again, Montius, makes a good point, Libertarian's (&etc) do not want to do their redistribution using techniques "in the sense that is normally meant by the word in today's discourse". Simply put, your typical Obama type liberal wants to redistribute by using societies current "rules of the game", and Libertarians (&etc) want to redistribute by changing societies "rules of the game".

Now I am in no way trivializing the importance of purity of the means, in other words "the rules of the game". In fact as a (lower case) anarchist this is of particular importance to my believes (to us the means never justifies the ends, in fact the means must be the ends... but I digress). But for this thought experiment I would like to just focus on the net result of the imagined redistribution of power in isolation:

Out here in the real world, it sure sounds like Libertarians (&etc) are...

1. Advocating giving effectively all power to our already very powerful Uber-Wealth Capitalists destroying the real world as we blog.

2. They advocate no "new-deal" before the change in the "rules of the game" what-so-ever. In fact they abhor the concept of any such socialist and/or "collectivist" ideas (to use another one of their "special" cultish words). They advocate no power structure, governmental or non-governmental (from civil society itself), set up in opposition. BTW starting conditions matter.

3. And lets admit something about the sadistically draconian principles of "absolute property rights", "absolute contracts", and the moral imperative that society should enforce these abortions with absolute violence... up to death or slavery. That something is that this system, as imagined, would not just stop governmental interference with the powers to be, it would stop all opposition power structures from forming, ever forming, including all non-governmental organized opposition from civil society itself.

The question is...

Do you Libertarians (&etc), and those who share the same core believes in this area, consider your proposed redistribution be more progressive than liberal politics (Obama, etc), less progressive, or do you consider it to be in fact regressive (as I feel pretty much all non-Libertarians do)?

It must be nice to have a beach house that you can blog about the "evils of the capitalist system" from.

No, they simply want a change of the rules of the game, because they believe the current rules (the status quo) is in some way "unjust" or "inefficient." If those who currently hold lots of wealth and influence (what you are encompassing under the umbrella term "power," methinks) happen to end up with lots of wealth and influence under a new (more just) set of rules, then so be it! They earned it under a justified or legitimate system. Let the chips fall where they may. There are many libertarians that express skepticism of that particular outcome, however (and not without reason). Change the rules of the game, and at least we can say that the system wasn't rigged from the start.

If you want to label that as "redistributionist" wrt power than so be it, but it certainly isn't the same as simply taking wealth from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots" simply because their balance sheets are different, so don't even try to compare it.

There is a difference between a philosophy whose implementation may result in some level of redistribution, and a philosophy which advocates redistribution to achieve some specified and desired end.

No, see Libertarians simply aren't concerned with some preconceived end ideal of egalitarianism.

Except you are. Deny it all you want, but you are. One simply needs to look at your advocate policies of "share and share alike" to see that is the case. You aren't concerned about the means, you are concerned about the end result of egalitarianism.

You know, critics of "ACism" keep asserting this, but they rarely demonstrate in effect how this is indeed so. If one believes that the state apparatus is a manner in which many of the "uber-wealth capitalists" in our world both gain and sustain their level of wealth (not an entirely unfounded proposition, and one that pretty much any "anarchist" has proposed), then getting rid of that apparatus certainly isn't giving all power to them. Not by any measure.

"New deal?" You think there is some sort of "reset button" to be pushed? This is real ****ing life we are talking about here. If you don't like the fact that nature itself is indeed a datum, that some people are "luckier" than others, then may I suggest going ahead and doing lots and lots of drugs and completely losing yourself in a fantasy world, because that is probably the only measure of comfort you will find with that kind of outlook, imo.

Of course "starting positions matter." However, the onus is on you to demonstrate how everyone else is under some obligation to insure that everyone starts from the same "starting condition."

There is no guarantee of anyone's "starting positions" be the same. No matter how much one wishes to regulate or forcefully redistribute.

Once again, you are simply trying to use as many silly emotionally charged words and phrases as you can in a given sentence and trying to pass it off as a legitimate argument. You haven't actually provided an argument of substance against "absolute property rights" here at all, but instead used a bunch of hyperbole. It is unfortunate.

No, the question is...

What actual argument do you have against the institution of property itself? This institution/principle that predates written human history, that hasn't been "dictated" by anyone, and represents and serves as a rational and natural equilibrium point for human interaction? So far, you have provided none.

Why yes it is. Except today there was no interwebs or tv at the beach house (unless you were off the electrical grid), so I had to go to the mesa house. Or to the nearby dive to be exact, to watch my Chargers kick the poop out of those chiefs.

If the same people would end up with all effectively all the power regardless of the "rules of the game". In what way would the current rules be considered "unjust" or "inefficient"? Think about it... I assume this is a permutation of the old canard I heard as a kid about if all the wealth was evened up, the same rich people would have it back soon away because they are smarter and work harder. As a kid I always said "bring it on" sounds like more than a free-roll to me, I win before "soon" flat out, and I really like my odds that this LOL-idiotic canard is, well LOL-idiotic.

The only outcome that makes sense would be if the set of outcomes in fact would be different. That is the only set of outcomes which in fact would be resulting in an "unjust" or "inefficient" as defined by Libertarians (&etc). Like I said, if Libertarians (&etc) have no problem with the balance of power now (and the subsequent allocation of production) what the heck are they blogging about? In fact Libertarians (&etc) want to actively reallocate the status-quo of production allocation. I can keep trying to explain this, or am I wrong?

The fact that two different "rules of the game" rules result in two different sets of outcomes says nothing about which one, if either, is in anyway "just" or "efficient". And for concept of "efficiency", well this requires some kind of utilitarian style metric. A whole lotta people, like me, would prefer a world without things like near-slavery, regardless of how objectively efficient a world of near-slavery might be by this or that utilitarian kinda metric.

LOL, No there is nothing justified or legitimate about Capitalism, real or imagined. LOL, and no dude, just changing the "rules of the game" without a "new deal" is the definition of a rigged game. Want me to give a poker based example?

Well no, but removing all effective power for everyone else does. As I mentioned in point #2, Libertarians (&etc) want to remove all power from the political liberals, and want to forever keep any faction who does not both believe in and submit to their power (as enforced by their asserted property rights). Libertarians (&etc) tell us who gets the power removed and who doesn't. The only people on the list of who doesn't is todays uber-rich Capitalists. That's why people assert this...

Well no, this is a thread about you Libertarians (&etc) explaining your moral philosophy. I don't need to even disclose my philosophy, never mind contrast and compare. I will make one comment about the starting conditions you mentioned.

I never said everyone should or even can have the same starting positions (intelligence, laziness, etc). And (lower case) anarchists are not interested in any kind of equality of wealth or such, never have been. So that part of your discussion is "strawman-thing", flat out. Here is what saying about starting positions...

Libertarians (&etc) insist on starting conditions that, given their own fair sounding "rules of the game" determine a regressive extension of the status-quo.

Still looking forward to discussing the definition of being in a "statist situation" and marooned sailors not believing in the concept of "property" and such that I have been putting off...

Damn that evil capitalism. With it allowing you to have your own beach house and all.

You ever exclude anybody from its use?

It has already been covered inumerable times here. The current rules are "unjust" because they involve the institutionalized and systematic use of coercion. From a more "utilitarian" perspective, it is inefficient for the same reasons socialist systems have problems with resource allocation (ie there is no price mechanism, and so on and so forth).

No. I've no doubt some of the wealthy would become wealthy again, but it is absurd to assert that the outcome would be identical. Even if the outcome were to somehow become identical (a very shakey proposition), that doesn't change one bit the fact that the means have changed.

You are wrong. Once again, you demonstrate that you are simply concerned with an egalitarian outcome. Anything other than this outcome is somehow automatically "the status quo" to you, which is a prima facie absurdity.

That is the whole point. One involves a system and institution of coercion (the state, as per earlier given definition), and the other the mechanism of conventions as a determinant of group behaviour (a non-imposed social order).

Well, I'm not going to argue for the utilitarian brand of libertarianism, because I don't personally subscribe to it.

And your continued hackneyed assertions of "slavery" are becoming quite old hat.

This is the point where you support your argument with substance instead of bare assertions and handwaving.

Yes, removing the apparatus that simply allows one winning coalition to take through politics what is denied to them by economics.

If you have an argument against property or the principle of ownership, go ahead and spill it. Your continued bare assertions of its "illegitimacy" are getting old.

No, this thread has turned into you attacking "Libertarian moral philosophy" with strawmen and silly assumptions derived from your own nonsense on stilts philosophy, and then trying to play it off as what Libertarians actually subscribe to.

Yes you are. You've already demanded a "new deal." One that presumably involves the "uber wealthy capitalists" being stripped of some or all of their property or wealth in order to make some imagined starting point "more fair" (or some other murky notion clouded by turgid rhetoric). There is no strawman here. You have, itt, railed against "unequal bargaining positions" and how they are "wrong" and so forth.

What you have not done is provided a sufficient reasoning as to why acquiring property (and excluding others of its use) is "illegitimate" or "unjust."

No, "Libertarians" insist on a non-imposed social order, as free from the monopolistic entity of the state as possible.

One choosing to not believe in the concept of property doesn't make it go away.

I'm more of an anti-government liberal than a libertarian, but I would say that it is progressive to give people more decisions over their lives and regressive to centralize power, which inherently decreases people's decision making power, even with initiatives that are honestly intended to improve it. This would mean that libertarians would be significantly more progressive than most Demorats (I refuse to call Democrats liberals, they are not), who are very regressive, but not necessarily as progressive as someone who supports a more decentralized form of socialism.

In summation

Progressive:

Green Party
Libertarian Party

Anti Progressive:

Democrats
Republicans

Uncertain/It's Complicated:

Constitution Party

OMG, childish reasoning here. Dude I live in North Korea, by your reasoning I have communism to thank for my beach house, duh! Dude everything working class people get is in spite of Capitalism, not because of it.

And the proposed new rules are just as coercive, if not more so. The problem is that Capitalism is a hierarchical and coercive form of oppression, regardless of the administrative details, regardless of the relative size of the necessary Capitalistic Enforcement State (or imagined exact functional equivalent organizations for ACists).

As to why Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchical and coercive, what my arguments are against hierarchy and against any kind of coercion, regardless of the public/private shell game used by ruling elites. Well that is a topic for a whole nother thread. As a positive suggestion, why don't we do a reading thread together on What is Property by Proudhon. Instead of arguing mindlessly with each other, we could attempt to compare and contrast and possibly educate the lurkers if not each other. Otherwise, I am trying not to completely trash up this thread, which is about Capitalistic & Libertarian morals not Communist, Theocracy, or anarchist morals.

Well all hierarchical and coercive organizations, including the three great peas-in-the-same-pod of hierarchy and coercion: Capitalism, Communism, and Theocracy, share the same objective problems with inefficiency. The problem stems from the means these type of societies use, hierarchy itself, and do not depend on the alleged ends.

If you want to talk about inefficiency, are you capable in discussing hierarchy (Cap,Libertarian,AC,Com,Theo) vs bottom up organization (anarchist). The inefficiency of just the internal transaction costs imposed by hierarchy dwarfs by orders of magnitude any possible inefficiencies even of the Commie's pricing fiascoes.

Actually you brought up the idea of the "status-quo" being perpetuated under Libertarianism (&etc), remember...

And my point is that =EITHER= Libertarians (&etc) proposed new rules will have by design significant redistributive changes =OR= these Libertarian Cultists are spamming the interwebs for nothing significant at all.

You can try to explain to me how I have formed a false dichotomy (good luck), or you can try to explain to me that Libertarians (&etc) truly do not want or care to change the status-quo per-se, they just want a little "rules fix up" around the edges (I am extremely skeptical), or you can agree with me that Libertarianism (&etc) is a fundamentally redistributive philosophy.

There have been several threads on this BBS about the Libertarians (&etc) claim that cartels/monopolies/oligarchy can only happen under a governmental system, and that their proposed rule changes would make today's cartels/monopolies/oligarchy disappear and keep new ones from forming. This is a direct statement of significant redistribution of power from the status-quo, as I think we can all agree we are beset my cartels/monopolies/oligarchies in today's real world Capitalistic societies. And the Libertarians (&etc) also positively assert that this would trickle down to the economic side of things as well with fairer pricing. So I assert that Libertarians (&etc) actively are proposing significant "leveling" of society, both in curtailing current real world Capitalistic power abuses by cartels/monoplolies/oligarchies but in our the prices at the store as well.

I'll ask the question again: Do you consider Libertarianism (&etc) less or more progressive than Obama style liberal partyism?

And regardless of how each coalition used politics, economics, or voodoo to achieve their ends, removing all power from every coalition but one, regardless of which one it happens to be or what your rooting interest is in that coalition, is effectively giving all power the remaining faction.

You don't like one faction here, you demonize their actions by characterizing their them as "taking", and you want them stripped of their power, got it. But Libertarians don't propose any power structure being added, just that all and every, except for the current Capitalistic ruling factions, must have their power removed. And that leaves, by process of elimination, effectively all power being given to our current real world Capitalistic ruling elites. This is exactly saying I don't want those Raiders, Chiefs, or Broncos in the NFL playoffs -- but NO OWE NO I'm not trying to say I only want my Chargers to win the division, WTF?

Yeah pretty sure that if you lived in N Korea you wouldn't have a beach house unless your name was Kim Jong Il or you were of some relation to him.

Bolded part needs to be substantiated. Especially considering the sheer number of "beach houses" that exist under systems closer to "pure capitalism" than not. To claim it is "in spite of it" is quite the egregious interpretation of the given empirical facts.

I do have a question though, and please forgive my "childish reasoning" here: if the notions of property and ownership are somehow illegitimate, then how exactly could one "own a beach house" in a system that does not respect either of notions as fundamentally legitimate? And also, how exactly does one come to "own" one "in spite of" a system that fundamentally relies on the respect of such notions of ownership and property? Something doesn't seem to add up here....

No, no they aren't. At least not unless you wish to use the term coercion in an utterly fatuous manner. Bare assertion numero uno.

No, no it isn't. Bare assertion numero dos.

A system of private property and private ownership is not inherently some imposed system of organization. It is not derived from some overarching or imposed authority, but rather from a spontaneous order.

If you wish to do something on Proudhon, go right ahead. I will gladly reference the how his thinking on the concepts and notions of "ownership" and "property" are both misguided and insidious.

I don't think a whole other thread is even necessary. You brought up the charge that property and ownership is illegitimate here, so you should deal with it here.

Aaaaannd Bare assertion numero tres.


No. That was well after this little gem you put:

You don't get to make lies up.

Once again: you are claiming the nature of the means are not significant. Congrats, you've now explicitly contradicted yourself.

Or, you can cut with the hackjob reasoning and realize that a non-imposed social order is fundamentally and functionally different than an imposed one, and that regardless of any probable "inegalitarian" outcome of either, they are not identical, and thus the former is not simply the "status quo," but instead fundamentally different than the latter.

Ok, even if we take what you just said as true, it still doesn't change the fact that it is not redistributionist in the same sense that the word is used in common economic parlance. And aren't you very fond of bitching about libertarians "redefining words" to suit their purposes and such? Hmm...


Silly loaded question. 1) It depends entirely on what you mean by the rather absurd and politically charged word "progressive" and 2) I don't consider Obama a "liberal," at least certainly not in the sense the word was originally used.

Except nobody really said anything about "removing all power from every coalition but one." What has been proposed is essentially questioning the legitimacy of any claim to political power, advocating it for none to hold such authority.

"Demonize their actions by characterizing them as 'taking'?" Yeah, hmm, maybe because that is the logical consequence of it? It is simply calling a spade a spade.

And "ACists" advocate everyone (rich and poor alike) being stripped of their political power, which makes it fundamentally different than the status quo.

No.

Libertarians advocate a non-imposed social order; a spontaneous order derived not from some hypothetical "indian rope trick" notion of authority, but instead on essentially an equilibrium solution of a "game" of coordinated behavior. What exactly do you not understand about this? Because there is only so many times I can excuse you for not getting it before I start to believe you are in some way mentally deficient here. I don't really want to believe that, but c'mon.

Regardless of your thoughts regarding (lower case) anarchism, I am not going to trash this thread up anymore than I already have by trying to explain over 200 years of theory and history. If you say I am not-substantiating the inherent hierarchical and coercive nature of certain ways societies can be arraigned, such as Capitalism, Communism, or a Theocracy you are correct. That is because this kind of compare and contrast is OT ITT.

Likewise nobody is asking you to substantiate your claims that Capitalism (including Libertarianism and imagined ACism) is in anyway just, spontaneous, voluntary or such. And for the same reason, that would be OT ITT.

OK I shouldn't have been, so I'll stop ITT. Perhaps we can continue the contrast and compare the positive redistributional claims made by Libertarianism Capitalism vs Political Liberal Capitalism in the LC thread?

This thread is about how contrasting and comparing how privacy considerations would be handled under three "flavors" of Capitalism: real world Capitalism, like the US, Japan, EU have today, Libertarianism Capitalism, and imagined ACist Capitalism.

Sure us anarchists would arraign things differently, but so would the Grand High Priests under a Theocracy. But here ITT we should discussing the difference between the different "flavors" of the same system -- Capitalism, and not be comparing the system in general to Feudalism or whatever.

I will explain briefly, and exactly, where you Libertarian (&etc) have the gaping freight train hole in you logic...

If you strip rich and poor alike of all political power, but leave factions with non-political power untouched, well you just effectively transferred all power to those who currently hold the non-political power. And since you divided people up into rich and poor... well which factions do you think have more non-political power? What it sounds like to me is... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

As I mentioned, we can start a reading thread together, as long as we make some agreement to not mindless tell each other we just are all wrong. Me just doing a thread by myself... let me think... no.

No that actually is a good question. A whole lotta sophistry is spun along the difference of fact of possession, the idea of legitimate possession and the idea of property. And it is easy to slip into using words in the common sense, like I did here. Let me explain...

* Possession, the way I am using the word here, means you physically have something, like holding a rock or being in physical control of a room, for a few examples. Possession is a fact of the world, not a thought or opinion or believe.

* Of course, different societies, as well as different individuals, may different opinions about what is and is not legitimate. But I baldly assert that without a widespread believe in and widespread respect for some concept of Legitimate Possession that stable civil society as well as preservation of human knowledge would be more or less impossible. Legitimate Possession is a fact of the world, not a thought or opinion or believe.

* Property is the prerogative to possess, sell, rent, idle or destroy something. Property is a distinct idea from Legitimate Possession, I will point you to Proudhon's book for an explanation, if you need one.

You might by misunderstanding my relation to the beach house, perhaps it is a work site, where I am replacing the windows, flooring, plumbing fixtures, and painting, in addition to acting as the watchman on weekends?

But to run with your hypothetical, I could not believe in property at all but still choose to take legal title if I thought it would save me money. So I would have legal title to something I don't believe in strictly the sake of convenience. Another good example would be under a theocracy would I buy an indulgence from some sky-man I don't believe in to avoid my holy enlistment into the crusades? Well let me think... yep. Hope that makes sense to you.

!!!!

But wonders of wonders... lets get back to privacy considerations. And of course, it is not just my friend Montous and myself chatting here, so I am continuing anyone to jump in here...

The consensus ITT is that for Libertarians (&etc) believe that any privacy considerations are a direct result of property rights. Libertarians believe there is no separate right to privacy that "competes" with property rights. Furthermore several have contented that privacy considerations would be logically impossible without the active practice (aka enforcement) of property rights. Amirite?

OK another "thought experiment" in LiberLand. I go to a private natural park a place where people would go to backpack for days, even a week, away from the trail head. I pay my admission ticket. The ticket clearly says that I have no right to make improvements or establish permanent camps. The ticket also clearly says I may take only personal belongings into the park and may not conduct business, including out of park business, while visiting the park. It warrants that the park owner and his employees will respect the customers privacy.

But no where does it say anything about customers respecting each other's privacy. In fact, by the terms of the ticket, we are prohibited from establishing any kind of property rights relationship during our visit to the park. So seeing that customers would not, and could not, relate to each other using property, well...

If property is really necessary for the concept of privacy to make sense, couldn't a perv stalk me for days until I got to the trail head. And seeing as I can't make improvements, there would be little I could do about this.

Wait, I know, that just wouldn't happen in LiberLand because people would change and be more wonderful... that's not the point of this story. The point is that the concept of privacy considerations cannot logically be inferred from the right to possess, sell, rent, idle or destroy something.

Several poasters have asked if any Libertarians (&etc) can explain privacy concerns using their CRAP, er NAP. Here is the answer so far...

soundofcrickets.mp3

People, even before they were humans, and long before there were societies, not to mention abstract concepts like "law" and "property", before all of that... people don't like other people watching them have sex or poop, it's way before wide scale trading itself, OMG, how could this basic human need be dependent on some inhuman practice of oppression.

And let me fix the cut/paste typo... Let me explain...

* Possession, the way I am using the word here, means you physically have something, like holding a rock or being in effective physical control of a room, for two examples. Possession is a fact of the world, not an opinion or believe.

* Legitimate Possession, I baldly assert that some such concept is necessary for a stable civil society as well as preservation of human knowledge. Of course different individuals, as well different societies in general are going to have different opinions and believes about what is and is not legitimate. The Legitimacy of a Possession is an opinion or believe, not a fact of the world.

* Property is the prerogative to possess, sell, rent or destroy something. Idling the something counts as well (possession without use). Property is a distinct concept from Legitimate Possession, and neither concept is contingent upon the other. I will point you to Proudhon's book for an explanation, if you need one. The Legitimacy of a Right of Property is an opinion or believe, not a fact of the world.

You made the claim. Substantiate it.

Yet I could very easily substantiate these things.

Why? No one has raised issue with having this discussion in here. Sounds like you are simply trying to avoid having it now.

I don't know by what benchmark you are "comparing and contrasting" exactly, but issues of privacy tend to be more of a broader cultural subject than an economic one. The Japanese certainly have a different view of privacy than Americans do, and so on.

Doubtful.

It sounds that way to you because you are completely deaf to reasoning.

You were the one that asserted his views were correct wrt property and ownership. Now lay the argument out and I'll respond to it.

Wait, you readily agree that "possession is a fact of the world," yet somehow property isn't?

Ownership is a fact of life that predates human society. Property and ownership arise out of conventions, the same thing that "legitimate possession" arises out of. In fact, "legitimate possession" and "property" in this sense rather indistinguishable from one another (except for the fact that you wish to assert some further arbitrary stipulations on what the "legitimate possessor" is at liberty to do with said good). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how a right is needed to justify this and why the "legitimate possessor" is not at liberty to have exclusive use/control over his "legitimate possession."

Well since you took title merely for the sake of convenience and not out of any intrinsic sense of "mine" and "thine," then surely you don't mind if I go and throw huge messy parties there whenever I feel like it, eat whatever food I may find when I arrive there, drink whatever alcohol happens to be lying around, and so forth? I mean, I won't eat the specific chicken wing you are munching down on or take the beer you are holding because, after all, you are using it at that moment. You are "legitimately possessing" it, so that would be wrong. But surely you can't be utilizing the entire house and all its accoutrements at the same time...

Well, I wouldn't call them so much contingent on property "rights," but rather on property itself. But ok sure, I'll bite.

If we did not enforce torts, there would be no privacy, as there would be nothing stopping me from simply stripping all the clothes off of your wife or girlfriend in order to ogle her goodies, or bust the closed door you are ****ing or ******** behind, etc.

You could wear your personal belonging if you are concerned about him seeing your peen. You know, the same manner in which you do in a public restroom today?

What a silly argument.

Err, yes it can. You know the little "terms of use" contract you outlined with relation to the parks owners? Yeah, just think about that and its implications for a second. It should come to you.

Yeah, they didn't like people watching them **** or ****, so they expropriated scarce resources for them to exclusively use to prevent prying eyes from watching. Imagine that? A system of property developing spontaneously in absentia of "law" or some "authority" and instead out of *gasp* convention.

Well if you insist. As you correctly said, it's common use in political discourse to use the word "redistribute" in only the Political Left Capitalist's sense, as in using the "rules of the game" to achieve their preferred redistribution, and not the Libertarian Capitalist's sense, as in changing the "rules of the game" to achieve their preferred redistribution. I assumed since you said it's more common to use the word "redistribution" in exclusively in the Political Left Capitalist sense only, that you would be cool using the word "redistribution" in a both a particular common use and a generalized uncommon use.

But I know you dudes are very sensitive about your "special" words. Relax, I would never dream of taking the word "redistribute" away from you dudes. I'll just coin a new phrase to get at the generalized usage I was referencing ITT. Easy game for me because I believe that words are just labels for ideas. I am concerned comparing the Net Distribution Change Quotient, or NDCQ. Where NDCQ is defined as measuring the net changes in a societies distribution of it's production, including effects of current "rule usage", proposed "rule changes" and any other significant changes in defacto allocation patterns.

So as you insisted, my question remains open...

So, in your opinion, under these different "flavors" of Capitalism, which do you think has a higher NDCQ: programs like the Political Left Capitalists propose, or programs that the Libertarians Capitalists propose, or unimagined programs the ACist Capitalists imagine?

And if you think the NDCQ would be significantly different under these three Capitalistic "flavors", which do you think would be more "leveling" or more "stratifying" compared to the status-quo of real world Captitalism?

And notice I am not asking for your explanation why your preferred "flavor" is Capitalism is more "tasty" than the real world Capitalist's flavor. Yeah you believe your favorite "flavor" of Capitalism is more voluntary and just than real world Capitalism, got it, but thanks for repeating several times. To a anti-Capitalist all "flavors" of Capitalism taste like poop. Save your taste comparisons for those who like your kind of Kool-Aid, OK?

As to marooned sailors and ignoring property rights, well LOL at Libertarians (&etc) claiming they have no social contract. To a sailor who doesn't believe in property rights, the villain is just another OMG MEN WITH A GUN violently attacking him. Unless you believe that there is some reason why a person who, for whatever reason, does not believe in property rights must none-the-less be violently forced to respect other peoples imaginary lines in the sand, for the good of society they claim... that doesn't involve invoking some kind of a social contract.

And remember pretty much all the "great" hierarchical and coercive schemes embrace property rights and this kind of social contract regarding them... Capitalism, Communism, Corporatism, etc. The difference here is these OT systems and real world Capitalism embrace their concepts of a social contract, while Libertarians (&etc) try to pretend it isn't there in plain sight. LOL, LOL, LOL!

I'll get back to privacy after I go to the beach house and scrape paint for several hours...

OK, scraped some paint, got a little old flaky lead into my bloodstream, and now gotta a little beer into my gullet (liquid lunch, the bar has wifi). OK, just kidding about the flaky lead, no real worries about that on this house. I wanna takeover in my generalized term coinage...

Instead of NDCQ I want to know the Change in Net Allocation of Production, or CNAP for short. CNAP is defined the same as NDCQ, the net sum of production allocation changes regardless of means. Which isn't a quotient anyways, LOL on me.

So my question, is how the distribution of CNAP would change under NAP in both Libertarian Capitalism and imagined ACist Capitalism as compared to real world Capitalism, like we have now in US, Japan, EU, etc. In your opinion would it be more "leveled" or "stratified" than the status-quo.

And I will try one more point about trying to "reason through" this whole stripping everyone of political power but leaving non-political untouched logic fail that Libertarians (&etc) champion...

If you take all the political power away from the factions, only those factions that have non-political power will have any power at all. The question then becomes... what would the new balance of power be after the removal of political power. If you handicap that the balance of power will be substantially the same or if you handicap that the balance of power will shift even further toward those factions who currently hold the balance of power well then... meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And if you handicap that the balance of power will shift away from those factions who currently hold the balance of power then... wait for it... you are championing a radical socialist program.

WTF do you mean I am wrong. If I handicap that my Chargers will cover against the 49ers Thursday I have an opinion -- I am not right or wrong. I handicap the "same boss" action is +EV on the proposed "rules of the game" prop bet regarding changes from real world Capitalism to Libertarian Capitalism. But that's just my "thought experiment" wild-arse guess. YMMV, I take it you happen to handicap things differently, but that doesn't make you right or wrong either.

Heck we could even set a line and bet on it... except this prop isn't likely to ever go off, and in the case of ACist Capitalism cannot.

The reason it is an issue is because the manner in which you were using it renders the word completely vacuous and worthless for analytical discussion.

It isn't even a "special word" chief. It is the common ****ing usage of it. You are the one that is trying to redefine terms here, so you can put your "Libertarians like their words" BS to bed now.

Once again, if you are only concerned about "end distributions," then your argument is rather pointless, considering the fact that the "status quo" is not some static distribution of production either. I suspect, and have so this whole time, you are simply concerned with an egalitarian outcome of the distribution of goods, and anything other than that is "unjust" or "illegitimate," regardless of the means or manner in which such a distribution comes about.

I have no accurate metric to be able to assert which would lead to a "higher NDCQ" DUCY?

I am not as concerned about an unequal distribution of goods as you are, I am concerned with the manner in which social order comes about.

Like I said, I am not as concerned about this as you. If the rich get richer under a just system, it is of no bother to me. Why should it be?

I don't particularly care what an anti-capitalist's jealousy tastes like to them. It changes nothing of the argument.

Sounds an awful lot like a child: "I don't like it, so NO FAIR!" :stamps foot and pouts:

Yeah, so the sailors decide to utilize a non-cooperative approach and essentially create a rather Hobbesian "war against all." Is that your point? Because I was under the impression we were talking about "social orders" not "social disorders." And no, a "social contract" is not necessary for spontaneous order.

The social contract (as it is used in common parlance ie Rawls et al) is not necessary for spontaneous order. Nor is capitalism (meaning a system of private property ownership) inherently an imposed or coercive social order requiring some authoritative social contract, despite what you keep asserting. This is demonstrably true.

I'm sorry that you feel that some people owning more **** than others constitutes "coercion," but this assertion doesn't hold up to even basic analytical thought.

What exactly is wrong with "non-political power." Is it "unjust" that I am smarter or faster or stronger than some others?

Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson are better golfers than I am. Is this situation "unjust?" They certainly have more power to exercise their will on the golf course than I do.

Manny Pacquiao is a far faster and higher skilled boxer than I am. Should we keep him out of the gym, fatten him up, break his legs, etc to even the score up? I mean, how unjust is it that he have more power in the boxing ring than I? It isn't "fair" or "equal" so therefor it cannot be "just" seems to be your rationale.

Dude Chill. I said you can have the redis-word. I promise I won't type it again ITT.

Dude, two things... first of all I never said I was personally in favor of egalitarian distribution of goods, WTF dude where did you ever get that goofyball idea?... second what if I made a gimmick account and self identified as a real world Capitalist. For example an American Ruplicat or Demacon. Would you care to answer questions about your morality, the topic of this thread if I did that? WTF difference does what I might be in favor off keeps you from asking some simple questions?

Well maybe you should. Joe Six-Pack Sheeple loves Capitalism. He loves Capitalism because his schools, churches, and media have told his whole life that USA=Capitalism=Democracy=InGodWeTrust. Joe don't really care if it's real world Capitalism, "Pure" Capitalism, or Christian Capitalism... Joe cares about his Flags, Wages & Nascar.

Joe hears about this new flanged proposed alternative to the real world Capitalism he knows and loves, well what's going to be his first question as lover of Capitalism... what's in it for me?

Libertarians (&etc) make many claims how their "change in the rules" will effect Change the Net Allocation of Production. I mentioned four earlier, but their are tons of others...

Today's Cartel/Monopoly/Oligarchy Capitalists... Negative CNAP
Customers of the above................................ Positive CNAP
People who use the artifice of politics.............. Negative CNAP
People who use the artifice of capitalism.......... Positive CNAP

The Political Liberals (and I agree, they tarnish the name of the Classical Liberals) also champion a program of effecting Change in the Net Allocation of Production by using the political system as is.

I was just wondering, how would you answer Joe Six-Pick Sheeple, currently a Repulicat or Demidog, his simple questions?....

* Will I have a positive CNAP under Libertarianism?
* Are the Political Liberals proposing a better deal for me, CNAP wise?
* Why shouldn't I stick with the Politcal Conservatives?
* What's in it for me?

Dude anti-capitalists have all sorts of objections to Capitalism, always have and always will. You seem to consider all of this childish and jealousy. First of all, you really need to take struggle against Capitalism in the real world as a given, because it is.

Second of all, you would be well served to drop your use of "childishness" and things like "jealousy" from adult discussion. You might not understand why people will always fight and die by the millions, but you really gotta get a clue that it is not "childishness" or something like "jealousy" that drives them.

I love LiberSpeak.. "non-cooperative approach" is fighting back against a people hunting maniac, wanna be more PC... you dudes crack me up...

The General: [Kronstadt Sailor washes up on Ship Trap Island] You got three choices... you can "volunteer" to take the low probability swim for the mainland, you can "volunteer" to be hunted like an animal, or my Man-Servant will kick the poop out of you for "refusing to engage in contractual relations". Then since I'm kind, you'll get another chance to "volunteer".

KS: Dude there is plenty of stuff to hunt & gather for us all until the next supply ship comes, and then I'll blow my way aboard it, WTF is up with hunting me like an animal?

G: Well I got a scroll, er deed right here that says this that I have "property rights" on this island which means I am like your king here, better start running...

KS: Dude I don't recognize your or any "property rights"... [hilarity ensues].

So unless everyone has already agreed to your Libertarian Property Rights we have a "war" situation correct? And in a "war" situation the rules of "social order" do not apply correct? So does that mean that...

1. Since there is no agreement between the General and the Sailor regarding the legitimacy of Generals "property rights" that in this case his property rights would not bind him and the soldier on the island. And therefore the General would have no Libertarian Moral Right use or threaten violence on the Sailor? -or-

2. Because the General has a legally valid Libertarian Deed, he may under Libertarian morality and law unilaterally use and threaten violence on the Sailor. The Sailor's believes do not matter in any way in the Libertarian moral or legal decision. (This is what I meant by a "social contract", but I guess I used the term wrong, my bad!) -or-

3. Or please explain why this isn't a true dichotomy!

Dude, I am an anarchist, I'm all about non-political power. You know we don't vote, right? LOL, sometimes I wonder if all you ACists are one big level. Did you forget who you were quoting back? LOL, I love you dudes. As for Phil Mickelson fighting Pacioco or whatever... WAT, LOL I have no idea what-so-ever you are blogging about, but WTF I like blogging with beer too... party on, LOL.

@Montios, but I would like everyone's opinion...

Now that I have clarified that I have nothing against non-political power. Which by the way I never said I did (and come on, it should be obvious that I wouldn't say that, duh). Let's go back to the core point we agree on about non-political power, and maybe you can double check my reasoning. I say (slightly clarified) ...

If you take all the political power away from the factions, only those factions that have non-political power will have any power at all. The question then becomes... what would the new balance of power be after the removal of political power. If you handicap that the balance of power will be substantially the same or if you handicap that the balance of power will shift even further toward those factions who currently hold the balance of power well then... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And if you handicap that the change will reverse or shatter the current balance of power then... wait for it... you are championing a radical socialist program.

Twice you said quite directly that I was wrong when I predicted "same boss". Of course, you meant that I had incorrectly handicapped the outcome, and you were predicting the inverse, correct? You have made it clear that you don't care about the outcome, just the rules. OK, fair enough. So...

* Why do you think I handicapped things wrong?
* Do you really think that Libertarianism will bring about a socialist revolution?

From your posts.

I've answered all of your questions. Of course, you in turn have drawn conclusions from them that do not follow, but nonetheless.

Why? So I can make silly, unfalsifiable, and useless assertions like you?

Good for Joe. What Joe cares about isn't relevant to the argument at hand.

And the short answer would be "greater liberty."

And you don't see how your statement "new boss, same as the old boss" is clearly wrongheaded?

Yes, and I've already explained the difference between utilizing political power as opposed to utilizing economics.

* There is a good chance you will, as the overall economic growth of society will increase.
* No doubt they wish you to believe they are.
* Because the idea of a "limited state" is a pretty silly idea.
* A just social order.

I'm aware that anti-capitalists have all sorts of objections to capitalism. Most of it stems out of either lack of understanding of a coherent or sound theory, or appeals to emotion and/or jealousy.

Forgive me for not being very sympathetic to a movement that advocates the harm or ******ation of the material progress of man through dumb, unjustified, and backwards economic practices and policy.

Yes it is. Having such emotionalism dictate your thought to such a degree is pretty childish.

Yeah actually that is a "non-cooperative approach." You really need to learn the difference between descriptive and normative statements.

This is a one-shot prisoner's dilemma. Of course the superior strategy is a non-cooperative one.

Fortunately, that is not an accurate model of social order.

So you are all about non-political power....except for when you aren't?

If you have no problem with non-political power, then you rationally should not have an issue with conventions wrt property and ownership.

Bolded do not follow one another. That is how you are wrong. The "old boss" is not the same as "the new boss."

Here is a very simplified little example to to illustrate how this is not the case:

I have an apple tree and an orange tree. Let's say I utilize fertilizer on the apple tree to increase my yield of apples and leave the orange tree alone. After harvesting both trees, I end up with 10 bushels of apples and just 4 bushels of oranges. There is clearly a disparity between the two here, no?

Ok, now I could reverse which tree I use the fertilizer on so I get 10 bushels of oranges to the 4 bushels of apples. Clearly, a disparity still exists, but it is clearly not the same. Oranges taste, smell, cook, weigh, etc differently than apples. They are a distinct and different fruit, and are not the same. The ends here are clearly different than the ends of the first.

Or, I can cut the apple tree down completely, leaving only the orange tree to flourish in the space. Clearly, there is still a disparity between the end result: I have no apples to whatever >0 yield of oranges I have (Very likely more than I would if the apple tree were still there, as its root system and other elements of it won't be interfering with the orange tree's development). If I cut one fruit tree down, only the fruit tree I have not cut down will yield any fruit.

And no, I don't think Libertarianism will bring about some socialist revolution.

Once again, I don't understand what difference it makes what I believe in ITT as we are discussing what Libertarians (&etc) believe in, but just because you are so concerned and insistent that I am OMG AN EGALITARIAN OMG here is a poast I've made about a half dozen times on this BBS, from Wikipedia...

The MONDRAGON Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956 [...] Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2009 it was providing employment for 85,066 people working in 256 companies [...] The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour [...] Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote [...]

At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between the worker-owners who do executive work and those who work in the field or factory and earn a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. [...]

Although the ratio for each cooperative varies, it is worker-owners within that cooperative who decide through a democratic vote what these ratios should be. Thus, if a general manager of a cooperative has a ratio of 9:1, it is because its worker-owners decided it was a fair ratio to maintain.[...]

So let me explain further. Us anarchists are not, in general, interested in any egalitarianism of material belongings. When you keep repeating this non-sense over and over you show your lack of understanding. Us anarchists are against hierarchical and coercive relationships (and the support organizations). Even if some magical Libertarian-Communist fairy came down and cast a egalitarian spell over a hierarchical and coercive system like Capitalism or Communism, we would still struggle against that imagined egalitarian system.

What we care about is that the people making the decision make it in small, autonomous groups in a consensual manner. To us anarchists, as long as the people in the small group, and only those people in that small group, decide on the ratios, they can be 1:1, 9:1, or 1000:1. We only care about the process here -- small group absolute autonomy, (truly) voluntary federation, and effective right of withdraw. Sound kinda familiar, but kinda strangely different, from what you were poasting, doesn't it?

Well I didn't say you had to have some predictions or even some basic ideas of what your proposed "change in rules" to Libertarian (&etc) Capitalism might accomplish compared to real world Capitalism. That's up to you dudes.

I was just suggesting that your fellow Capitalist supporters, like the fictional
Joe Six-Pack Sheeple, are going to be asking you dudes these kinda questions. And since it is the Sheeple you would need to herd to your "flavor" of Capitalism (to buy all those Rand books or whatever) perhaps you might want to think about the consequences of your proposed "change of rules" a little bit. But whatever... party on.

OK I get it finally. You believe that removing political power from the equation would fundamentally reverse or shatter the current balance of power under real world Capitalism. Thanks for answering, so you really do believe that Libertarianism would bring about a radical socialist restructuring of our societies, didn't see that one coming. If I have drawn a conclusion that does not follow, feel free to correct my reasoning, of course.

Are you aware that there are all sorts of different kinds of anti-capitalism, and they all pretty much are as different from each other, and conflict with each other, as much if not more so than they do with Capitalism? There is no such thing as an overarching anti-capitalist movement, LOL. Think of Capitalism as a color in the spectrum, lets say Poop Brown. What you are doing is lumping all other colors into some Anti-Poop-Brown movement.

The fact you conflate all of humanity like this, and use words like "lack of understanding" and language like "appeals" and "jealousy", and claim everyone but the chosen way will "****** material progress", think about what you are saying...

You are saying everyone in the whole world, who doesn't agree with you, are all peas in a pod, are all organized in the same movement, and are incoherent, unsound, emotional, jealous, advocate harm, are dumb, unjustified, backwards, and childish. Everyone else in the whole entire world, throughout all of history, but true believers in your flavor of Kool-Aid.

And you wonder why people tread you dudes like a cult.

No it is not an accurate model of social order. It is a *thought experiment* exploring Libertarian Morals. And you did not answer this question, which is what the *thought experiment* was driving at, and is what the topic of this thread is actually about: Libertarian Morality. Hey I kinda would like this one particular question answered. I really gotta understand what Libertarians really believe in this case to move forward in this discussion...

Given that there is no agreement between the General and the Sailor regarding the legitimacy of Generals claim of property rights then...
=EITHER= The Generals claims of property rights would not morally bind him and the soldier on the island. And therefore the General would have no Libertarian Moral right use or threaten violence on the Sailor?
=OR= Because the General has a valid Libertarian Deed, he may under Libertarian morality and law unilaterally use and threaten violence on the Sailor. The Sailor's rejection of the Generals claims of property rights does not matter in any way in the Libertarian Moral or Legal calculus?

Well I think what might be confusing you is a little more faulty either/or thinking on your part. Of course anarchists are all about non-political power, so I don't have the slightest idea what you are getting at with by claiming that anarchists are sometimes "aren't" about non-political power. Rejection of Political Action (using political power) is an "axiom" of modern anarchism. Like I asked, you know we don't vote, correct?

You faulty either/or reasoning is that their =EITHER= you support political power =OR= you should (rationally) embrace the concept of property rights. Well let me think... epic logic fail.