No, because my point is that this type of relationship is impossible to exist in a stateless society. No minority (be it mafia, priest, warlord, whatever) can dominate the majority, unless the system is set up in such a way that the minority is using the majority's own resources to fight it (as is the case with the financial industry using the police, funded by tax-payer money, to fight the Occupy protestors).

No, I agree completely, but I would like to hear a more organized argument against it. Because it seems like they do have a legitimate point when they say how minarchists are accused by ACists who are in turn accused by anarchists that they aren't consistent, because they don't want to abolish all coercive hierarchies, but rather draw an arbitrary line.

I think an anarcho-primitivist would respond to your feral child criticism by saying that he's not in favor of treating the child like an animal. You can still raise it normally, feed him, talk to him, teach him stuff, etc. But why impose technology on him as well?

Once again, I am not defending anarhco-primitivism (as if it wasn't clear enough from all my past posts), but I want to understand why it's wrong.

Once again, my point here isn't to discuss how to deal with these problems... my point is to discuss the nature of these kinds of relationships. So I'll try to continue here...

First of all, this notion of the "THE STATE" is fatally flawed. As I tried to point out previously (with my discussion of the retiring king) is that to a large degree the security apparatus of a ruling oligarchy can be what we commonly call "public", or what we commonly call "private". A ruling oligarchy can employ a regular army, or employ primarily mercenaries. A ruling oligarchy can employ police, or can employ Pinkertons, or use some combination of both. In addition, a ruling oligarchy can fund their security apparatus directly through fees on the oppressed (sometimes, but not always, called taxes), or indirectly through usury (sometimes, but not always, called profits).

In fact, thinking in terms of a "stateless society" is looking at things butt-backwards. What we need to look at is the existence of a ruling oligarchy. What we really need to ignore is what are the strictly mechanical details on how these ruling oligarchy go about their oppression... things like what is commonly called "public" (regular army, police, taxes) and things that are commonly called "private" (mercenaries, Pinkertons, profits).

Can I get an "amen" here? Or can we chat about this concept in general?

What you mean to say (because I can read your mind here) is that this type of relationship is impossible without a ruling oligarchy, and that ruling oligarchy must necessarily take from the majority to fund their own oppression. But again this has nothing necessarily to do with the "THE STATE", or taxes... a ruling oligarchy can accomplish the same ends by what we commonly call "private" means, and fund it through extractions of profits just as easily.

And to cut to the chase, these kinda relationships (extorted tithes, protection payments, tribute) are all example of ownership-like relationships. The entire essence of ownership-like relationships is establishing a violent veto situation, and using that violent veto power to extort payments for use. In other words 'usury' (in the strict sense of the word).

If I can keep someone else from farming a field that I'm not personally using, I can extract rent or a sharecropped share. If I can keep someone else from using a machine that I'm not personally using, I can extract profit through the wage system. If I can keep someone else from using an idea or story, I can extract intellectual property payments. That's what property is, violent extortion... in other words robbery.

Bottom line: extorted tithes == protection racket == tribute == rent == the wage system == sharecropping == loans at interest. All these things are usury, all these things need institutionalized violent government-like organizations to extract, and this is what property/ownership is all about.

Once again, the way our language is structured is causing this disconnect in our discussion. Your possessions are the things you use and occupy personally. All functioning societies have norms that respect possession (at least for most people), even pre-legal societies. All people should morally have their privacy respected, be safe in their person and secure in their possessions.

Ownership (again, the distinction you keep making by qualifying as 'private' doesn't have any meaning here) is an entirely different concept. Just like red/blue/green is an entirely different kinda concept than east/west/north/south.

Think about it, you can't rent out your possessions, because you cease to possess them the minute you rent them out... they are then the possession of the renter. So it's not a matter if having ownership of your possession (unless you are referring only to the governmental title sense of the word ownership) is "OK"... it's a matter of being logically impossible. If you are in possession, you don't have ownership (again, except in the sense of governmental title), and if you have ownership, you can't be in possession.

Once again, there is no magical god who decides that this action is "exploitation" and this other action is not "exploitation". When using the word in this manner we are always talking about a relationship, not an action. The richest guy in the world isn't usually going to be stuck out-of-doors for the night, so nobody is going to be able to exploit their position over them to over-charge him for shelter. But if his magical balloon crash lands at your doorstep during a storm, and he might perish out-of-doors before his handlers can get there and save him, you very well can exploit your situation over him to massively over-charge him for spending the night on your couch. Or let's say that richest person get's charged $1 more in taxes for net governmental services over what he actually uses, on threat of going to the house-of-pain? In that case the government agents are exploiting their situation over him for that $1.

Don't be results-oriented here, and don't try to divine some holy list of "exploitative" actions and "non-exploitative" actions. That's not how the word is being used in this context. It's being used in a different sense... is somebody exploiting their power situation over someone else, to gain an unfair payment or advantage. In this context, it's a matter of the relationship, not the particular action or relative result.

It's not an anarchist position, it's just common sense. The so-called "concept" of self-ownership is a bit of LOLtastical empty sophistry. It has no meaning, none what-so-ever.

Constructive criticism taken.

Because children aren't mentally or psychologically able to make informed decisions of consent on all matters, depending on their age and development.

I think this is something which we fundamentally disagree on. You say we shouldn't focus on the specific tools the ruling class is using in order to exploit the rest of the people. But I think that is exactly what we should be focusing on. Maybe the disagreement is big enough for a thread of its own even ("Can a ruling class exist without a state?") I'll leave it up to you to tell me whether you think we should continue the discussion about this issue in particular in a new thread.

But the main point I'm defending on the topic is that without what Weber called monopoly on violence, the existence of a ruling class is impossible. It is quite clear that you disagree with this, but again, I am ready to defend it. No Blackwater, Pinkertons, or whatever else can ever become so powerful as to oppress the majority... unless the majority internalizes their legitimacy... as has been the case with the states throughout history. It was the divine right of kings before, it's the social contract today.

But you see that the moment people stop accepting the legitimacy of the ruling class, no amount of force is sufficient to stop their resistance. So, our battle today is mostly with the minds of the oppressed, not with the oppressors themselves.

I understand that. But my question is, are you okay with people being able to have legitimate property rights over things (being able to rent them, sell them, etc.) if we lived in a world of abundance, where everybody can own more than they can think of?

So, you didn't really respond to my question about the girl exploiting the boy by making him her slave for a month. What are your thoughts on something like this happening in an anarchist society?

I am very surprised to read this. I thought anarchism would naturally embrace self-ownership. So, you don't think I should be free to use, sell, rent, idle, gift, bequeath, or destroy my body?

This is trivially false. A monopoly isn't necessary, as a protection racket and a government can co-exist, a street-gang and a government can co-exist, etc. Also two governments can co-exist over the same territory. This was not uncommon during feudal times, and still happens today during civil wars.

And legitimacy isn't necessary either, just the effective use of violence. Otherwise the whole concept of occupied territory would be meaningless. Try selling this theory to the Palestinians, to apartheid era South Africa, or inside any prison.

Historically right here in the US, the Pinkertons were effectively used to oppress the majority. Like I have blogged over and over again, power is what matters and power is almost completely fungible. The magical "cape and sword" of government is just a form of propaganda. Useful and cost effective, but hardly necessary.

We don't live in that kinda fantasy world. The question doesn't really make any sense. For instance, why would I rent something if I can just have it for free?

That's not exploitation (no matter how much us males are frustrated that we don't have our own vagina).

No, once again we are getting tripped up on the difference between possession and property. Baring the Star Trek Borg, your body is your possession. You cannot be dis-possessed in a literal sense of the word. All you need to say is that a person should be safe in their person.

The sophistry is trying to tie the bogus concept of ownership in at any level here. To elaborate further, this sophistry trades on the different meanings of the word "mine" or "my". Is the hotel room, or park bench, I'm using right now "mine"? Is that the same as saying I "own" it? Do I "own" my own favorite sports team? Do I "own" my own favorite color?

Does a dogs "own" it's own paw? And what part of the dog would "own" that paw then, the dog's brain? And what part of the dog would then "own" the dog's brain, the dog's skull? This is pure non-sense. And I haven't even started with what happens if I get a dog licence for this dog. Does that mean the dog no longer "owns" it's own paw?

Saying I "own" my own body is pure nonsense. Because what am I? Well I am my body, am I not? So this statement is the same as saying "body owns body", which is completely meaningless. Does a chair "own" it's own chair? Does a song "own" it's own song? Can any X "own" X, regardless of what X is?

Seriously, this is simple minded sophistry on the level of "if a plane crashes on the border, where do you bury the survivors". Google is your friend if you want this pointed out further... but consider, anarchists don't do "ownership" at all, and neither did pre-government societies until about 5-10k years ago. So how can this idea even make sense?

I don't really count the existence of street gangs as something that removes the state's monopoly on violence. Normal people still aren't allowed to protect themselves against violence. Basically in such a society (I am living in such a society, btw) I'm forced to choose between not being able to protect myself against violence and having to forcefully pay to the state to protect me (does a pretty ****ty job btw) on the one hand, or being able to protect myself and effectively become a criminal because the state doesn't allow me to do so (and now instead of protecting myself from an individual aggressor, I have to protect myself against the state's aggression).

Your examples are wrong.

I think I'm not being able to communicate what I mean very well. I'm not saying that the moment the majority realizes the monirity's power is illegitimate they magically manage to overthrow them. Obviously, it matters how strong the minority is. Palestinians are facing violence from the state of Israel (and from the US, if needed), not just from a random private firm. The point that I tried to make a long time ago is that no organization can become so powerful from the bottom up in a stateless society. Without the help of the government, that is. Because when people are not prevented from owning guns AND using them, when needed, they will naturally cut the ambitions of such an organization from becoming strong enough to oppress them. Unless the majority starts viewing it as being legitimate, but this would be pretty ******ed in an anarchist society, now wouldn't it?

You're evading my question. I didn't say we lived in such a world now, and I didn't ask if you would be willing to rent something from me in such a world. I asked you if hypothetically in such a world you'd be fine if people were able to have legitimate ownership of things, nevermind if anybody would be willing to actually buy them or whatever.

You say that it's pretty straightforward to differentiate between what's exploitation and what's not, but this (as well as many other examples I can give) prove you wrong. I assure you that there are many people who would call this exploitation.

I just used the definition of ownership that you repeated many times: "use, sell, rent, idle, gift, bequeath, or destroy". If I'm free to do all those thing with my body, then obviously I own it, by that definition. You have to be consistent here.

No, it's not nonsensical. The chair and song examples are nonsensical, though, because chairs and songs can't own things. So, the nonsensical part doesn't come from them owning themselves, but from saying that they own anything in the first place. The chair owning the bathtub sounds equally nonsensical.

However, when it comes to human beings, who CAN own things (using your definition again), this makes all the sense in the world. Again, all you need to do is apply your own definition. Should I be able to do whatever I want to my body? If the answer is "yes", then I own it.

If you still think it's meaningless, consider the opposite. Does it make sense to say that I don't own my body? Well, currently, the state claims legal ownership of everyone's body, so according to the state we're not allowed to do anything to our bodies, unless the state says it's okay.

And the point I keep trying to make is that there is nothing magically different about organizations just because they are called "government". If you wanna have a career as a street prostitute in certain areas, you are gonna have to pay the street gang that controls them rent for your corner. If you wanna have a career running a candy store in certain areas, you are gonna have to pay the mafia that is running a protection racket there. And if you wanna have a career running a used car lot almost anywhere, you are gonna have to pay the government anointed landlord rent. My point here is public rent (street gang) == protection money == private rent (landlord), it's all the same thing, it's all a form of "protection", it's all violent extortion.

You missed my point about Palestine also, "normal" Palestinians are under the thumb of the government of Israel and the government of Palestine (aka the Palestinian Authority). The same thing routinely happens in disputed territory during civil wars... you get taxed from multiple organizations called "governments".

If you are simply making the point that only one of these "governments" are typically internationally recognized at any one time, I'll agree with you. But consider Taiwan and the PRC... does one have a "government" and the other not have a "government", and did anything effectively change on the ground when almost all other governments shifted their recognition in the 1970s?

I don't feel the scenario makes any sense. In a Star Trek world of matter replicators, does the concept of "ownership" even have any meaning at all?

That's because the word "exploitation" has several different meanings. The way it has been historically used in political discussions is in a narrow technical sense, not in these kinda broad conversational senses. How about this... for the time being forget the word "exploit" all together. What is historically meant is 'usury', in the broad sense of the word (that is charging someone simply to use something, over and above the costs of maintenance, etc). OK?

What you are missing here is that the term has no meaning unless the agent doing to owning is distinct from the thing being owned. It's a bit of childish sophistry, founded on our languages co-evolution with Christianity, in particular body/soul dualism. I'm not kidding, this is just a non-sense, non-concept. Google is your friend. Here are some good links, the first two written by anarchists, the last written by a libertarian:

<3 Anarcho-Slaverist special words.

Why do youz guyz do this (part in bold)? You don't literally think I'm magic, do you? You don't literally think I'm 100s of years old, do you? So let's step back and ask the meta-question... what do youz guyz get outta doing this? How come you don't ask other poasters questions with this strange and bizarre personal phraseology?

We'll get the the LOLtastical metaphysical failures above in due time, I promise.

MD, opinions on the 2012 MLB season?

Predictions?

My Padres suck. Worst record in baseball, and already seven games out. I predict they'll continue to suck.

Seriously, I have reached an all-time low in following MLB so far this year, and don't have anything insightful to say. Yeah, I suck even more than my Padres.

Is there any point in going through all this non-sense? WTF, I'll give it one try once.

1. Possession just means "yours to use or occupy". You already know all of this... as all human societies, and even some animals, have a sense of possession. This has nothing to do with ideology, or enforcement organizations, or right/wrong, or anarchism, or propertarianism (like Communism or capitalism), or the Wizard of Oz.

Let's say you are driving your car, and wanna park it and walk around a bit. You see a striped parking space. There are no signs or other clues that it isn't available to the public, including you. You pull into it and park. You have now taken possession of that parking space.

Can I get a "amen" here... do you understand what "yours to use or occupy" means? Do you realize you already know what is meant here, and have understood this concept your whole life?

I understand what you mean; with the exception of the reality that it is possible to have something which is "mine to use and occupy" and also have that samething as being "exploitative" (in terms of what you deem free trade/free markets etc to be). Do you atleast conceed that in many instances, your definition of possession v property has a lot of grey area? Who gets trusted with the power to decide what is what? And isn't somebody in power, deciding something for people, the equivalent of a government? Is there a formula which is used in this grey areas (to determine the ratio between possession and private property)? What threshold needs to be crossed? 51%?

If this isn't the case, and its always one or the other, then , do you have any problem with someone trading something that is in their possession (e.g a house i live in 24/7 where i let a person use the spare room if they clean my yard) ?

I think MDs position would work perfectly in a reality where humans were completely empathetic to each other (and by each other, i mean ALL other human beings). This would be awesome, but it isn't the case, our heritage and evolution has neccesiated that we adapt a tribal mentality. We place greater value on ourselves, and the lives of the people in our lives, family, friends, partners your local butcher than we do on human beings we do not know, and will not ever know. Thus, we act in a selfish, way, and this translates into our economic activity. A system where widely dispersed agents co-operate through acting in their self interest is intimately compatible with our nature and anything to the contrary to this will need massive force and tyranny to impose. It is just incompatible with the human condition to expect everyone to be willing, and happy, to sacrifice for what is perceived to be the greater good.

Now i know what MDs response will be, humans are brainwashed by capitalist propaganda; but this really is a non response to my underlying premise that capitalism and free markets are a natural phenomenon.

Nothing I'm trying to explain has anything to do with the "free market" non-sense. You need to leave that stuff aside and think more generally. Communism, capitalism, and monarchy are all propertarian regimes.

No. Once again, you are trying to understand possession v. property as an either/or situation. It is not. Seriously, let's just concentrate on the topic of possession first, before getting lost in these kinda odd star-trek like scenarios youz guyz love.

Under a propertarian regime (Communist, capitalist, monarchy -- it doesn't matter) when you rent a house, lease a car, or work for an absentee owner the house and car are the possession of the renter, and the workers are in possession of the factory -- as they are the ones using and occupying them. While at the same time the house, car, and factory are the property of the owner -- as they have governmental title.

Once again, under a propertarian regime (Communist, capitalist, monarchy) if you hold the governmental deed to the house you personally live in, that house is both your possession and your property. Likewise if you hold the governmental pink slip to the car you personsally use, or the governmental patent to the invention you personally assembling -- they are both your possession and your property.

Are you still with me here? The key points are that possession and property are not mutually exclusive, they are in fact independent. And that it is very easy to distinguish one from the other. Can I get another "amen" here?

Youz guyz gotta really stop trying to view anarchism is some kinda personal "theory". This step alone would go a whole long way to understanding what anarchism is. This whole idea that anarchism is MissileDog's "position" is messing you up.

Anarchism does not depend or assume that people will be more empathetic, or any other changes in human nature. It does work in the real world, very well I might add, and has for over 100 years... that part is well proven by history.

And remember, anarchists reject all propertarian regimes, Communist, capitalist, monarchist, etc. So you might as well say as your underlying premise that Communism is a "natural phenomenon" too.

Anyways, we know that capitalism (just like Communism and anarchism) are children of the industrial revolution. Capitalism dates from the English enclosures circa 1600. That's only about 400 years ago. Humans have been around for 100s of thousands of years. None of these "-isms" are anywhere near old enough to influence evolutionary changes in human nature, not even close. This whole "human nature" argument is flat-out specious.