[Joe Liberty]

If you believe an intruder damaged your walls with graffiti, then you should be entitled to compensation for all damages.
However, you already admitted that the graffiti is beautiful. I do wonder whether your walls have actually been damaged.
Perhaps your walls have actually been improved.

It doesn't matter, if he didn't give permission to paint the wall in the first place.

The intruder's art on your walls is his creation and therefore also his property.

If the wall-owner paid the artist to paint it then it isn't the artist's property at all. He has traded his artwork for compensation.

I believe the homeless window washer is entitled to compensation for his labour, if that labour actually has value to the car owner.
I dont think the window washer has a right to damage your car if you refuse to pay.

But since this scenario was raised as an analogy to the wall-painting scenario, shouldn't the same logic apply? Since he made the window "more beautiful", using the same logic you applied to the artist, doesn't he now own the window?

If you did actually benefit from the washed windows, then I would say, he is definately entitled to some compensation.
Since there is no contract between window washer and car owner, the actual value of the window wash is unknown.

Also because there is no contract, and the homeless person washed the windshield without agreement or even approval, I believe he's entitled to nothing.

[libertarian_4_life]

It doesn't matter, if he didn't give permission to paint the wall in the first place.

If the wall-owner paid the artist to paint it then it isn't the artist's property at all. He has traded his artwork for compensation.

For the record, the wall-owner did not give permission (and I assume) also did not give payment. There is no agreement between wall-owner and painter.

FYI, when I do custom work for clients, I make it clear to them that I keep full intellectual rights to everything I produce. The client only receives a single copy for personal use.
If a client asks me for exclusive rights, I charge a lot more.

Payment does not necessarily mean loss of rights. It depends on the terms of the deal.

But since this scenario was raised as an analogy to the wall-painting scenario, shouldn't the same logic apply? Since he made the window "more beautiful", using the same logic you applied to the artist, doesn't he now own the window?

I misread Eran's post and missed the part about "without permission". I dont believe the intruder painter should have rights to own the wall.
Besides, I never actually specified whether or not the painter owns the wall.

[truth_seeker]

The premise here seems to be that "anarchism" has been redefined along the lines of a Murray Rothbard (his predecessors, and others who share this view). This is not the anarchism of thinkers like Pierre Proudhon (who was the first to use the term "anarchism"), or his progeny. For these anarchists, the right to live free from coercion, is an inalienable right, implying that this right cannot be surrendered under any circumstances (not even by voluntary consent). This includes any slice of our rights. In other words, anarchism rejects social contract theory, it rejects parliamentary governance, and only a fully consensus based (horizontal) society, can be consistent with anarchist thinking.

[Soixante-Retard]

The premise here seems to be that "anarchism" has been redefined along the lines of a Murray Rothbard (his predecessors, and others who share this view). This is not the anarchism of thinkers like Pierre Proudhon (who was the first to use the term "anarchism"), or his progeny. For these anarchists, the right to live free from coercion, is an inalienable right, implying that this right cannot be surrendered under any circumstances (not even by voluntary consent). This includes any slice of our rights. In other words, anarchism rejects social contract theory, it rejects parliamentary governance, and only a fully consensus based (horizontal) society, can be consistent with anarchist thinking.

[truth_seeker]

You can face palm me all you like ... but I'm describing traditional anarchism (not variants from the Austrian school of economics). American libertarian philosophy is the new kid on the block, and in my opinion, it deviates so much from the anarchist intellectual tradition, it cannot be called anarchism (even if it fits within its technical definition). Coercion in any form is anathema in anarchist philosophy, this includes "both" private and state coercion. If we take the view that the right to live free from coercion is inalienable, then it's a right that cannot be given away, not even consensually (in other words, we cannot volunteer to submit ourselves to the dominion of anyone, including a boss); and the right "to quit" is not sufficient to uphold this right, since it still entails submitting ourselves to the dominion of another (even if temporarily, and even if it's a soft form of coercion).

At very minimum, true anarchist thought would impose a high bar in order to justify any form of authoritarianism (and very few power relationships can withstand this degree of scrutiny). Parent/child relationships, caring for someone with serious mental infirmities, dealing with dangerous criminals, etc. are examples of power relationships that can be justified in many cases (but it's a very short list).

[Soixante-Retard]

Yaddah yaddah. One can disagree with anarcho-capitalism, as I do, without having to misrepresent it - which you've done.

Anarchism, Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism

[truth_seeker]

Yaddah yaddah. One can disagree with anarcho-capitalism, as I do, without having to misrepresent it - which you've done.

Anarchism, Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism

How am I misrepresenting it exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I don't think anything I've said is inconsistent with this depiction of anacap. I'll say this, I certainly have more in common with anacaps compared to garden variety liberals or conservatives. However, I simply acknowledge the possibility that private power can threaten society just as much as state power, and traditional anarchism places organic limits on the accumulation of private power (whereas there's no convincing evidence that natural monopolies cannot accrue over time, and thus, gain a monopoly on coercive power, becoming effectively a "state equivalent").

Moreover, a society that is not organized horizontally, around the principle of consensus, is invariably coercive.

[Soixante-Retard]

You implied that Rothbard's anarchism doesn't recognize "the right to live free from coercion is an inalienable right" and that it doesn't reject "social contract theory", doesn't "reject parliamentary governance" and rejects "horizontal society". All of which is false.

Murray Rothbard championed the right to live free from coercion.

I do hope you read that article I linked. Have you read any of Rothbard's books, such as Anatomy of the State or The Ethics of Liberty or are you, as I presume you are, just parroting some second hand misinterpretation of his work?

He is another link you might find useful: Anarchist Theory FAQ

You seem to be under the two misinterpretations. One, that anarcho-capitalism precludes any other form of anarchism taking place, when it doesn't. And two, that Anarchism is synonymous for co-operation when it isn't:

Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else. Anarchy is the mother of co-operation, — yes, just as liberty is the mother of order; but, as a matter of definition, liberty is not order nor is Anarchism co-operation.

By the way, since Proudhon was a market anarchist (see Mutualism), Murray Rothbard would appropriately be considered an intellectual successor to Proudhon.

...principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual

You might like this video.

[Eran]

One can disagree with anarcho-capitalism, as I do, without having to misrepresent it

In what way do you disagree with anarcho-capitalism?

[Soixante-Retard]

Sorry Eran, I was very sloppy with my wording. When I say I disagree with anarcho-capitalism, what I meant was that I find Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism, deduction from the NAP, is, I think, unconvincing to, well, most people.

[Lucas]

Anarchy I believe is close to impossible to happen and will always be negative for the people.

It is near impossible because sadly the majority and by majority I mean a GREAT majority of the population of the planet is unable to lead themselves. Thus causing people who are smarter and stronger to decide to take power and people will almost always rally behind them. Which in effect causes a type of government to form, and thats how its pretty much how it's worked out from the beginning of mankind and I can guarantee it will continue.

[SolarCross]

Addressing the OP, sorry I too lazy to read through all of the posts following it.
If I have you right then your objection to anarchism is simply that some form of governance would emerge from society regardless. If by governance one means social custom then you are surely right but that wouldn't necessarily make an anarchy any less anarchic. The internet is a thoroughly anarchic domain yet there is plenty of governance in the most general sense.
Maybe a better way of thinking of anarchism is as a parliament of everyone. A society of peers, each as entitled to 'govern' as anyone else. If that is anarchism then that may be just as emergent as any oligarchy.

[Rothbardian]

The argument that government is an emergent phenomenon is a lie, and does not hold up to basic logic.

As you say, the fundamental trait of a government is the use of violence, to force people to obey against their will. To argue that government occurs naturally makes no sense in this context. How often do you have to force people to do things that come naturally to them?

That said, there are basically two common arguments on how governments were created:

1) There was a need for governments to organize society so it could progress.
2) Governments resulted from armies conquering neighboring societies and installing their own governments.

The first is in my experience the most common, so I will go into that. The first governments were spinoffs of religion, and did not appear until agriculture had developed to the point that people could create more produce than they needed for themselves to survive. Now, these early societies had complex economies and social structures, including laws, but no governments. If you think about it, a government could not exist until society had developed to the point that it could sustain non producers.

There was no need for a government, governments were installed by the elitist classes by convincing the public that their leaders were literal gods. It wasn't until very recently that people started believing in this logical pretzel of a 'government of the people'; people at the time had to believe in a living god to accept the kind of subjugation you think is inherent in man's nature. For example, they would use knowledge of lunar cycles to say "You haven't been obeying the pharoah and the gods are so angry, tomorrow they will take away the sun!" Of course, this was the day before an eclipse.

As I said, laws existed before governments. The first laws, courts, and judges existed in a bottom up system. Two people would have a dispute, and would find an uninvolved third party they both agree on to mediate. These were private courts, and people who were good at reaching decisions that all parties felt were fair became known as judges.

Now, if people who have just figured out how to farm well enough to keep their children from starving to death can manage themselves that well without opening the pandora's box of statism, there really is no excuse for it to continue today. Except that children spend the early years of their lives being educated by the state.

[Rothbardian]

SR's a statist after all! =O

Anyway, I agree. Newborns are entitled to a social contract to prevent abuse, and a social contract needs a jurisdiction.

Otherwise, there's no difference between civilization and a state of nature. Reality doesn't need society to exist.

So your argument is that:

1) Children cannot protect themselves

2) Social contracts protect children

3) Therefor social contracts are required to protect children

4) Therefor governments are required to execute social contracts

Is that correct? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, it's not like there have never been children killed by governments. I mean let's face it, it's a simple empirical fact that governments are by far the most dangerous institutions on the planet. Moreso than any disease or crime. When something kills so many people that the holocaust can be disregarded as a rounding error, you know you're not talking about a reasonable means of safety.

[Soixante-Retard]

This:

The argument that government is an emergent phenomenon is a lie, and does not hold up to basic logic.

Is contradicted by this:

2) Governments resulted from armies conquering neighboring societies and installing their own governments.

So long as there are violent persons who wish to dominate and impose their will on other persons there will exist a government. Government is, I think, an emergent phenomenon.

[Malatant of Shadow]

As you say, the fundamental trait of a government is the use of violence, to force people to obey against their will. To argue that government occurs naturally makes no sense in this context. How often do you have to force people to do things that come naturally to them?

So let's see. When someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and steal your property, it comes naturally to him to turn around, leave you and yours alone, and pay for the damage he caused when he broke in?

Obviously you don't have to force people to do what comes naturally to them; the problem is that when people do what comes naturally to them that isn't always desirable.

The first is in my experience the most common, so I will go into that. The first governments were spinoffs of religion, and did not appear until agriculture had developed to the point that people could create more produce than they needed for themselves to survive. Now, these early societies had complex economies and social structures, including laws, but no governments. If you think about it, a government could not exist until society had developed to the point that it could sustain non producers.

This isn't quite true. For one thing, you're ignoring all the stages of development between the informal non-hierarchical hunter-gatherer governing structures and full-fledged states such as the first cities exhibited. As people shift from foraging and hunting to agriculture, population grows, and new governing structures emerge to deal with the increase in vectors of conflict and the increased possibility of collective action, but they don't become full-fledged states in an instant. Tribal governing structures and proto-states such as the Iroquois League or the Icelandic Commonwealth come into being along the way. As numbers increase, increasingly more formal governing structures are required, which allow the community to continue and further evolve, requiring more governmental changes, and so on.

Here is what anarchists have to deal with on an empirical level, and this relates to the OP (with which I agree).

There has never been a hunter-gatherer community that DID have a formal governing structure.

There has never been a community more advanced than hunter-gatherer that DIDN'T have some kind of formal governing structure.

There has never been a community that had not advanced to the point of having cities that DID have a state, properly so called.

There has never been a community that had advanced to the point of having cities, that DIDN'T have a state, properly so called.

A single exception to any of these might show the government is optional and support that some sort of nefarious conspiracy or power grab made it happen. But I know of none. I believe I have a good theoretical grasp of WHY these observed facts are facts; I believe it has to do with the exponential increase in vectors of potential conflict in a more complex society, together with the increased resources that allow for the possibility of desirable collective projects requiring increased organization. Everything else, such as class conflict, is a warping factor that tends to arise for one reason or another but does not create the state itself.

Of course, along those lines, there actually is a way to have anarchy: revert to hunter-gatherer. If we do that, we won't need a government.

[SolarCross]

Mal - If we must have government then we all have to be in it as equals or it is just organised crime.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Mal - If we must have government then we all have to be in it as equals or it is just organised crime.

I'm inclined to agree with that, taxizen -- maybe minus the exaggeration at the end, but definitely we need for political power to be equally shared, and so far in history it never has been.

Things have gotten better compared to what they once were, but we're not there yet! And I don't believe we can have political equality without economic equality at the same time.

[mikema63]

I've sort of come to the conclusion that even if malatant still thinks any system I would consider anarchy still has a government it doesn't really matter.

He can call it what he wishes, but I do not think organized crime is an exaggeration, have you seen the US government lately?

[Malatant of Shadow]

He can call it what he wishes, but I do not think organized crime is an exaggeration, have you seen the US government lately?

I live in the U.S., so yes. I regard calling it "organized crime" as hyperbole. Much of what the government does I approve of. Some of what it does, I don't. But that will probably always be so.

I can't think of anything done by organized criminals lately that would meet my approval.

I can work politically towards having the government stop doing things I think are wrong as well as to get it to do things I think it should be doing but isn't. If I try to lobby the Mafia or the Yakuza or the Mexican drug cartels along those lines I'll be risking my life. I'd say that's a significant difference right there.