[DubiousDan]

Things become simpler if we realize that there are two classes of property. One is property which derives from the state and the other is property which derives from possession. If I drop my pocket knife somewhere and someone picks it up, then it is up to me to prove that it belongs to me. However if my family has lived on a farm for three generations and someone can come up with a state verified deed to the property, it becomes his property.

If there is no state then the only property you have is the property you possess. Of course you can gather a band of brigands and grab property, and that is how states are created.
However, without the state, if you leave land vacate, then someone else can move in. Without the state, the only property you have is the property you are using. If no one is using the property, then it is free for anyone to use.
The tricky part is when a group decides to use property. For example if you have a community and you want a community park. Or you want to graze cattle on common property.

However when someone claims land more than he can personally use and then demand that others pay him to use it, then without the state, he has a problem.

If you stop and think about it, just how much of our hierarchy would remain without state derived property. I’m not talking just land, I mean all property that derives from the state. If it needs a state certified title or deed, it’s state derived property.

How do you eliminate state derived property? You destroy the state. How do you do that? States are a product of civilization. Civilization is a mechanism which uploads the harvest of the Harvesters to the Elites. Elites are a semi-hereditary class. Their existence depends on the hereditary possession of privilege or wealth. Put an end to that and you destroy civilization. How do you do that? Cellular Representative Democracy. Will it happen. Probably not. There is probably less than a century before civilization destroys Humanity.

[SecretSquirrel]

Civilization has already destroyed humanity, as evidenced by the countless total wars and genocides of the recent decades and century.

Our humanity being long dead, it won't be long until we cause ourselves to go extinct

[Melodramatic]

One is property which derives from the state and the other is property which derives from possession.

Indeed, I have been convinced of that since I read Proudhon. but there are some subtleties to regular property which I do not feel this solves. There is the problem of rent, which is incompatible with said system. While I have less of a problem applying this to land and it seems correct, it is also unintuitive. Why shouldn't a man be allowed to give out his car for a price? even give a loan?

How do you do that? States are a product of civilization.

I agree with what you have written up to this point. Less sure if I disagree, more of not understanding your definition of civilization. I still can't think about it in any way but technology, and you claimed that is not what you mean...

How do you do that? Cellular Representative Democracy.

I don't think it can't happen otherwise. but that would indeed be a step towards anarchism, towards the original meaning of democracy.

[Eran]

The notion of property in both land and portable objects FAR preceded the state.

Societies naturally and organically develop the concept, together with rules for its definition and application.

We don't need a state to either define or enforce property rights. All that is needed is broad agreement over the laws pertaining to property and the principles or mechanisms for resolving disputes.

There is no difference in that regard between property being in somebody's possession, and property belonging to one person and rented for the use of another. More complex arrangements, including corporations, long-term contracts, etc. can also emerge, all without the state.

However when someone claims land more than he can personally use and then demand that others pay him to use it, then without the state, he has a problem.

Again, the relevant question is societal norms. If those allow a person to acquire large land holdings (e.g. by purchasing them outright from their previous legitimate owners), there is no problem, in principle, for him to rent the land out, demand rent, and have that demand enforced, all without the state.

I view private property as an essential extension of self-ownership. For the latter to mean anything, it has to include an ability to create and control physical objects. Those objects I create out of unowned material, or out of material I traded with its previous legitimate owners is legitimately mine.

Once you allow some private property, including unlimited self-ownership, you cannot stop some people from getting wealthier than others.

[SecretSquirrel]

The problem with outright land ownership is that while a person may be able to sell his rights to a commons, he cannot in any moral framework sell the rights of his children

[Eran]

Would you mind elaborating? It sounds like you might be suggesting that our children are disadvantaged by having all previously-unowned land already grabbed. Is that your point? If so, would you rather be born at a time and place in which more land was unowned? Or in today's world, with land being owned, but where you get to benefit tremendously from knowledge and capital accumulation made possible through efficient use of land by properly-motivated private agents?

[SecretSquirrel]

benefit tremendously from knowledge and capital accumulation made possible through efficient use of land by properly-motivated private agents?

Consequentialist arguments get no where with deontologically minded folks, yet consequentialists continue to try...

[Eran]

Let's try again.

The problem with outright land ownership is that while a person may be able to sell his rights to a commons, he cannot in any moral framework sell the rights of his children

That assumes that any person has a right to a commons. Even further, it assumes that his children (presumably including unborn children) have such rights. How do you argue for such rights?

[SecretSquirrel]

rights in general, rights of future generations, or rights to a commons?

[Eran]

The latter, I guess. I am merely trying to better understand your previous statement:

The problem with outright land ownership is that while a person may be able to sell his rights to a commons, he cannot in any moral framework sell the rights of his children

[DubiousDan]

The notion of property in both land and portable objects FAR preceded the state.

Societies naturally and organically develop the concept, together with rules for its definition and application.

We don't need a state to either define or enforce property rights. All that is needed is broad agreement over the laws pertaining to property and the principles or mechanisms for resolving disputes.

There is no difference in that regard between property being in somebody's possession, and property belonging to one person and rented for the use of another. More complex arrangements, including corporations, long-term contracts, etc. can also emerge, all without the state.

This is all very positively stated. However, as far as I can see this is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion at variance with my knowledge of anthropology and processual archaeology.

Cultural anthropology would seem to be the discipline which covers your arguments, but I am unfamiliar with the position. Perhaps you could name the anthropologist or give us a cite?

It is generally accepted to the best of my knowledge that for more than a hundred millennia of Humanity’s existence, Humans lived in the hunter gatherer mode and no such concept as landed property evolved during that time. The concept of land as property is incompatible with the nature of hunter gatherer social orders.
After the rise of agriculture which happened in the comparatively recent last fifteen thousand years, the control of land become important. However, the social orders which preceded coercive social orders were persuasive social orders which used such mechanisms as competitive feasting to win followers to compliance.
States are coercive social orders. Perhaps your concept of a state and mine are different.

State:
From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0

5 a : a body of people permanently occupying a definite territory and politically organized under a sovereign government almost entirely free from external control and possessing coercive power to maintain order within the community : BODY POLITIC,

To my knowledge, you might reference Charles Stanish, “Ancient Titicaca, chapter 2, the evolution of political economies,” which reflects the standpoint of processual archaeology, the transition from persuasive social orders to coercive social orders took place over a relatively brief interval of Humanity’s existence, about two millennia, in both the Andean Area, and the Nile Delta. Without extensive analysis, I would say this reflects the experience of other areas where civilization evolved. In short, the transition from non-coercive social orders to coercive social orders, states, happened relatively quickly in Human experience.

As I said this reflects the viewpoint of processual archaeology, if you want the viewpoint of cultural anthropology, there is Marshal Sahlins’ “Stone Age Economics”.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _11725469/

I have the book, but it’s a little difficult to post.
In non-coercive social orders, the autonomous unit of production was the household. This seems to be consistent throughout human history and prehistory. Essentially this is the family. From this we have clan relationships and other organizational factors, but they are on a voluntary basis.

I believe both Sahlins and Stanish are in agreement on this point.

Note: Autonomous unit of production.

This leaves little room for externally enforced concepts such as land property ownership. As for corporations, that usually requires more than one household. Usually, corporations are defined by law, and law is a property of states. Law requires coercion. There is an obsolete definition of corporation, which might by a stretch apply, but I know of no anecdotal anthropological account of it. Perhaps you could supply one?

From the Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0.

1 : a body of persons associated for some purpose (as standardization of conditions): as a obsolete : a group of merchants or traders united in an association : a trade guild b : the body of municipal authorities of a town or city *the Corporation of the City of London*

Now perhaps you could tell us the source of your theory or is it original to yourself?

Again, the relevant question is societal norms. If those allow a person to acquire large land holdings (e.g. by purchasing them outright from their previous legitimate owners), there is no problem, in principle, for him to rent the land out, demand rent, and have that demand enforced, all without the state.

I view private property as an essential extension of self-ownership. For the latter to mean anything, it has to include an ability to create and control physical objects. Those objects I create out of unowned material, or out of material I traded with its previous legitimate owners is legitimately mine.

Once you allow some private property, including unlimited self-ownership, you cannot stop some people from getting wealthier than others.

Social norms, what ever they be? Just how are these social norms enforced? Yes, you view a lot of things. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately in your case, the state will have the final say.

[Eran]

I agree that widespread property in land probably did not emerge until after the adoption of agriculture.

However, property in portal objects was known for tens of thousands of years. There is evidence, for example, of trading (sea shells for flints) going back to, and also observed within relatively recent, hunter-gatherer societies.

Property rights in land emerged as agriculture started supporting a more sedentary lifestyle. I think there is general agreement that agriculture preceded organised states. Agriculture, I argue, is impossible without property rights in land. Without such rights, why would anybody go to the trouble of clearing a field, planting and tending it for months until harvesting is possible?

It is conceivable that some agricultural communities held land as a community property. Note that I didn't make any claim regarding private property (though I strongly suspect that was common too).

In short, the transition from non-coercive social orders to coercive social orders, states, happened relatively quickly in Human experience.

That may well be right. My point is that governments didn't invent the concept of property, as some people try to suggest. At best, governments regulated a practice that preceded their own emergence.

In non-coercive social orders, the autonomous unit of production was the household.

This leaves little room for externally enforced concepts such as land property ownership.

How do you envision the relation between an ancient farmer and his land in a non-coercive social order? Do you think that any person (or even any member of the village) was welcome to grab the product of other people's fields? If not, wouldn't you characterise the society has having the concept of land ownership (obviously at the household rather than individual level)?

As for corporations, that usually requires more than one household. Usually, corporations are defined by law, and law is a property of states. Law requires coercion. There is an obsolete definition of corporation, which might by a stretch apply, but I know of no anecdotal anthropological account of it. Perhaps you could supply one?

I never claimed that corporations preceded states. Neither did electric power. That doesn't mean that a state is required for either. In the loose sense of a group of people working together towards a common economic goal, corporations/partnerships are prehistoric. Joint irrigation projects come to mind as an example.

In the modern technical sense, corporations are a modern invention. In particular, the limited liability corporation is a pure construct of government, and has no legitimate existence (imo) in a free society.

Now perhaps you could tell us the source of your theory or is it original to yourself?

My statement with respect to corporation was speculative, rather than factual. I stated that corporations "can also emerge, all without the state". As a speculative statement (in the sense of raising a notion about a hypothetical, not in the sense of being unlikely), I don't have historic evidence to back it up.

There are historic examples of self-governming merchant communities having evolved complex legal practices without government enforcement - see Lex mercatoria. From wikipedia:

The lex Mercatoria was originally a body of rules and principles laid down by merchants themselves to regulate their dealings. It consisted of usages and customs common to merchants and traders in Europe, with slightly local differences. It originated from the problem that civil law was not responsive enough to the growing demands of commerce: there was a need for quick and effective jurisdiction, administered by specialised courts. The guiding spirit of the merchant law was that it ought to evolve from commercial practice, respond to the needs of the merchants, and be comprehensible and acceptable to the merchants who submitted to it.

Social norms, what ever they be? Just how are these social norms enforced?

Social norms are always going to guide any society. Norms themselves, enforcement mechanisms, and, in particular, norms regarding enforcement mechanisms all vary. I am making the point that, with appropriate norms, a state is not necessary for enforcement. Again, see Lex Mercatoria for one example.

[DubiousDan]

However, property in portal objects was known for tens of thousands of years. There is evidence, for example, of trading (sea shells for flints) going back to, and also observed within relatively recent, hunter-gatherer societies.

I assume that you mean portable objects. Know no shame, we don't have time to proof read on the forum. Remember the two classes of property. Property by possession probably existed before man. Even a dog has a sense of it.
Yes, hunter gatherer social orders had trade. And it was regulated by something akin to cultural norms, not sure I have your definition. It is the morality of the Anarchist, the concept of right and wrong which exists in the unvoiced, and yes, it is linked to culture, to a degree that you could say that it was dictated by culture, but I wouldn’t.
However, possession was the criteria. Yes, you could transfer the possession, and it was done in some exceedingly complex ways. Competitive feasting went so far as to exchange possession for future non-material favors, de facto political power. However, it wasn’t binding and depended on the unvoiced sense of obligation, which wasn’t always accepted.

Deferred trading was done, and again, it was regulated by the unvoiced code. Violations could result in the disruption of trade and possible loss of life. It was up to the individual to enforce his code, however, others were obviously influenced. If you cheated someone else, you could cheat me.
Not only that, but there was banditry when unvoiced codes conflicted.
Still, possession was the factor, past possession in the case of deferred trading. It was your property because you possessed it, not because the state said it was. The person who received it from you recognized your right of possession and thus the obligation which came from the receiving. It was a complex code of obligation among the polar Inuit of Greenland. The man who gave the most and received the least won. The opposite of our social order. This was not an uncommon value system in hunter gatherer social orders.

However state certified property is a function of states. If your deed is from the state, then you have state certified property. A car, a home, land, yes, even corporate stock. Obviously this cannot exist before the state. This was my point. If you don’t have the state, then property is by possession, and yes, it’s not simple, but it still derives from possession.

Property rights in land emerged as agriculture started supporting a more sedentary lifestyle. I think there is general agreement that agriculture preceded organised states. Agriculture, I argue, is impossible without property rights in land. Without such rights, why would anybody go to the trouble of clearing a field, planting and tending it for months until harvesting is possible?

More sedentary life style? You really should read some anthropology. Sahlins pretty much dispelled that myth, but he was only one. The myth is history, only the unlearned cling to it. Let me give you a somewhat extreme version of the modern view.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_wor ... mond_j.htm

As for motive, what was the motive for collectively killing a mammoth? Man is capable of comprehending a deferred reward. It is probably one of the things that separate him from most other animals. My understanding is that most agriculture in not all agriculture before civilization was done collectively. After all, isn’t that what the concept of the commons is about?

What agriculture did was allow a stationary life style and for the accumulation of food and goods. This led to armies, and armies led to slavery, and that created civilization. I’m not sure which came first, states or civilization. Every since, they have pretty much been a packaged deal

That may well be right. My point is that governments didn't invent the concept of property, as some people try to suggest. At best, governments regulated a practice that preceded their own emergence.

There was slavery before governments, I’m certain of that, but government made it the foundation of the social order.

How do you envision the relation between an ancient farmer and his land in a non-coercive social order? Do you think that any person (or even any member of the village) was welcome to grab the product of other people's fields? If not, wouldn't you characterise the society has having the concept of land ownership (obviously at the household rather than individual level)?

When the hunters returned from the hunt, they divided the kill. Obviously they had a code of behavior. However, nobody thought that the deer belonged to anybody before he was killed. And if the killer had thought that the deer belonged to him, then he would have become unpopular. If he had made a habit of it, if he were lucky, he would have been invited to leave the group.

I would imagine that land was looked at in the beginning as a collective resource, to be used for the benefit of the collective. Hunting was a collective activity, I would imagine that agriculture was at the beginning as well. You instinctively say other people’s fields. That is an acquired habit from civilization. I imagine that it went from the field to possibly our field, but it was a long time, and yet, a short time, before it became my field.

How do you envision the relation between an ancient farmer and his land in a non-coercive social order? Do you think that any person (or even any member of the village) was welcome to grab the product of other people's fields? If not, wouldn't you characterise the society has having the concept of land ownership (obviously at the household rather than individual level)?

Again other peoples fields. I suspect that they were more concerned with who did his share and who didn’t. Yes, and perhaps who took more than his share?

That may well be right. My point is that governments didn't invent the concept of property, as some people try to suggest. At best, governments regulated a practice that preceded their own emergence.

Don’t you read before you post? I postulated two classes of property, one by possession and the other assigned by the state.
How do you get state assigned property without the state?

There are historic examples of self-governming merchant communities having evolved complex legal practices without government enforcement - see Lex mercatoria. From wikipedia:

These organizations, which I feel is more correct than communities, existed within the state and made use of the resources of the state. In some cases, they were the state, as in Venice.
You could use the Mafia as another example or the drug cartels in Mexico. However, they depend on the state for their existence. A gang member goes through my neighborhood with impunity because if I shoot him, the state will arrest me.

Social norms are always going to guide any society. Norms themselves, enforcement mechanisms, and, in particular, norms regarding enforcement mechanisms all vary. I am making the point that, with appropriate norms, a state is not necessary for enforcement. Again, see Lex Mercatoria for one example.

Pending clarification on social norms, while I reject your example, I accept your premise. After all, that is the basis of Anarchism.

[Eran]

I think we are broadly in agreement regarding the nature of primitive property. But then you write:

However state certified property is a function of states. If your deed is from the state, then you have state certified property. A car, a home, land, yes, even corporate stock. Obviously this cannot exist before the state. This was my point. If you don’t have the state, then property is by possession, and yes, it’s not simple, but it still derives from possession.

I fail to understand your logic. The state-certified property is a function of states is a tautology. Why can't we have private title company-certified property? A title registration company could issue a deed. I don't see why any object, a car, a home, land or corporate stock require state for their existence.

By your historic logic, electricity cannot exist without a state, since before states we had no electricity.

I am not sure what relevance the comparison of the relative merits of agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies on my claim. You point correctly that agriculture preceded the state. I claimed that agricultural societies must recognise property rights in land. Ergo, property rights in land preceded the state.

There was slavery before governments, I’m certain of that, but government made it the foundation of the social order.

No argument there.

How do you get state assigned property without the state?

I guess I disagree with your characterisation of "state-assigned". I think "state-certified" is more appropriate. And all you need to do is have private institutions that replace the state's role in certifying ownership. Why is that difficult?

These organizations, which I feel is more correct than communities, existed within the state and made use of the resources of the state.

We are talking about late medieval period. What "resources of the state" do you have in mind? The only relevant function of the "state" at the time was protection against foreign invasion. The point is that Lex mercatoria provides an example of privately-defined and enforced law, operating without reliance on state courts. If it worked in the 13th century, why assume it couldn't work today?

A gang member goes through my neighborhood with impunity because if I shoot him, the state will arrest me.

I am not sure what point you are making. Of course the modern state provides a useful service of deterring crime. How does that show that it is the only, or even the best way of doing that? Why is competition so useful in other areas of life, but inappropriate when it comes to property protection and dispute resolution?

[DubiousDan]

I fail to understand your logic. The state-certified property is a function of states is a tautology. Why can't we have private title company-certified property? A title registration company could issue a deed. I don't see why any object, a car, a home, land or corporate stock require state for their existence.

I fear you have studied as much logic as anthropology. I hope that you are young, because you have much to learn. I was calling attention to something that you keep overlooking, that is hardly a tautology.
I didn’t say you couldn’t create another system, I just stated what was in existence at the present.
Does your company exist? Could it exist? Think about it, don’t just say it.
As Alfred Korzybski was fond of saying, “Truth does not exist independent of context.”
So create the context of your company that verifies property. Don’t just say it, create it, make your company work in the real world. I think you will discover that it’s not all that easy.
Remember, the company that you are creating has to exist without a state. It’s authority cannot come from the state. What is the mechanism by which it will enforce your property rights? There are other questions, I will let you discover them.

All that I said is that state derived property requires a state. This is immutable logic. I said that the other class of property is derived from possession. If you know of another class of property, by all means inform me. As for imaginary scenarios, I have created worlds, universes, and beyond universes, however, they don’t exist.

By your historic logic, electricity cannot exist without a state, since before states we had no electricity.

My logic is not historic. It is your perception of my logic that is at fault.

Electricity does not derive it’s existence from the state, state derived property does.

I am not sure what relevance the comparison of the relative merits of agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies on my claim. You point correctly that agriculture preceded the state. I claimed that agricultural societies must recognise property rights in land. Ergo, property rights in land preceded the state.

Have you ever taken a course in logic? I claimed, there for it is so. You have one small defect in your argument. You haven’t proven that agricultural societies must recognize property rights in land. I will be quite interested to see your proof. You do realize that you have asserted that you cannot have an agricultural society without property rights in land, don’t you?

I guess I disagree with your characterisation of "state-assigned". I think "state-certified" is more appropriate. And all you need to do is have private institutions that replace the state's role in certifying ownership. Why is that difficult?

Try it.

We are talking about late medieval period. What "resources of the state" do you have in mind? The only relevant function of the "state" at the time was protection against foreign invasion. The point is that Lex mercatoria provides an example of privately-defined and enforced law, operating without reliance on state courts. If it worked in the 13th century, why assume it couldn't work today?

It didn’t work without reliance on state courts, in many cases it operated in defiance of them. However, what did they trade with, and where did it come from?

I suggest an anime, “Spice and Wolf”. You may find it quite enjoyable and most informative. It does however require the wit to learn.

It can be found at hulu.com/spice-and-wolf?c=Animation-and-Cartoons/Anime

I would have provided the link, but it may be against Forum policy.
Start at season one, episode 1.

I am not sure what point you are making. Of course the modern state provides a useful service of deterring crime. How does that show that it is the only, or even the best way of doing that? Why is competition so useful in other areas of life, but inappropriate when it comes to property protection and dispute resolution?

I’m becoming a bit discouraged at this point. The point seemed rather obvious to me, and that you could so widely miss it would indicate an enormous difference in our reality constructs. There is a limit to the capabilities of verbal communication.

[Eran]

I fear you have studied as much logic as anthropology. I hope that you are young, because you have much to learn.

There are other questions, I will let you discover them.

Have you ever taken a course in logic?

I’m becoming a bit discouraged at this point. The point seemed rather obvious to me, and that you could so widely miss it would indicate an enormous difference in our reality constructs. There is a limit to the capabilities of verbal communication.

You are being very condescending. I will ignore your tone, but suggest that the conversation would be much more pleasant if we both gave each other the benefit of the doubt - assume misunderstanding rather than profound stupidity on the other side.

If I understand your position correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), you recognize the possibility of possession-based property without state institutions. Obviously, some property in current society is not possession-based. For example, a landlord can legally own a house he rents out to a tenant without physically possessing property. You call this kind of property "state-assigned". Clearly, "state-assigned" property requires a state, almost by definition. Hence my reference to it as a tautology. The assertion that state-assigned property requires a state is not a very interesting one. You substantive assertion, as I understand it, is that property can only be either possession-based or state-assigned. There are no additional options. How am I doing so far?

Assuming I am correct, I will state my disagreement. I would like to offer another category of property. Call it "contract-based". Say I own and possess a house. No states. I want to rent the house out to you. You want to rent it from me. We agree on terms, and sign a contract. The contract allows you to possess the house, but only on a conditional basis. Contract terms make it clear that I am still the owner. For example, you are committed to evacuate the house at the end of the rental period, and return it to me.

I argue that contract-based property can be both defined and enforced without a state. Lex Mercatoria provides one example of an effective legal system in which contract-based property was enforced without necessary reference to state courts. Several books suggest what an Anarcho-Capitalist society might look like, including private dispute resolution and private property protection. I can suggest David Friedman (the Machinery of Freedom), Murray Rothbard (For a New Liberty), Stefan Molyneux (The Stateless Society), Gustave de Molinari (The Production of Security), The Tannahils (The Market for Liberty).

Finally, I want to point out that every legal system is based on unwritten societal conventions. No exception. For example, what gives the British Parliament its legal authority? It couldn't be any Act of Parliament (for without the legal authority, the act itself would be without authority). The same reasoning applies to the Constitution of the US. Since the legal institutions of every society are fundamentally based on unwritten conventions, one can easily imagine a society in which such unwritten conventions do not place all legal authority with a single body, but rather that society recognizes a number of competing (commercially) and cooperating (procedurally) bodies to adjudicate disputes. Since those bodies would have societally-recognized authority, organization yielding physical force will obey their authority (in the same way that the armed forces of a modern state obey its civilian authority despite yielding the actual physical force).

[ingliz]

I argue that contract-based property can be both defined and enforced without a state

Private property cannot exist without the State. "Anarcho" capitalists cannot get rid of the state, they can only privatise it.

[Eran]

I guess we have different notion of what a "State" is. By "State" I mean an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimized use of force.

If we both "privatise" the State AND open it to competition, it is no longer a State by this definition.

What is your definition of a State, and why do you think it is required for contract-based private property to exist?

[ingliz]

If we both "privatise" the State AND open it to competition, it is no longer a State by this definition.

Wrong!

Weber's definition of the "State" is an organisation with an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force over a given area. The extent of that area is not given.

.. and why do you think it is required for contract-based private property to exist?

A system of social relations presupposing the autonomy of individuals in reality presupposes the existence of a state, i.e. a legal-political entity which is capable of producing laws and enacting them and which is external to and autonomous from civil society.

[iriswaters]

The standing difficulty with personally funded police/defense forces is the unequal protection it gives separate people. This unequal protection is ripe for abuse. And if there is a circumstance where people exist in strong competition, and some have more power, and there are ways to abuse that power, abuse will occur. Way too easy for police force A to outforce police force B, who's been hired to defend some 'private property'. If they are outmatched, by force, what recourse do they have?

Besides, defense is by no means a simple manner of keeping others from breaking down your door. Human interaction is a complex tapestry. At some point, some legal circumstance will require a judge. Yet think, if complainant A is paying to security force X for police work and judicial proceedings, and defendant B is paying to security force Y for these things... under whom is the court case held? Who shall be the judge?

The idea that in such a society, people would generally be good to one another only holds for as long as there isn't one person who gains power and abuses it. As soon as one does, others will follow suit.

An interesting study of games theory was done with a group of volunteers. Each was given a theoretical $100. They then were given the chance to give up any amount they wished, and have that money be multiplied by 2 and spread over the -rest- of the group. Logically, if everyone gave everything, everyone would come out ahead. Yet there is an incentive for each individual to hold back as much as possible, and gain their own money in addition to whatever their compatriots gave. The result of playing the game repeatedly with the same group of players was that the amount 'donated' suffered a sharp decline, as people saw the 'cheaters' walking away with extra rewards. The result that everyone suffered, but at least the cheaters prospered less.

Then a new element was brought in. An opportunity to 'punish' others. By spending a certain amount of their money they were able to harm the income of another player. All of a sudden, the amount 'donated' jumped through the roof, and all prospered.

Thing is, if people see others manipulating the system to their advantage and have no recourse to punish them for it, many will in turn manipulate the system themselves. What's more, the structure of capitalism makes it so that those who do so have an edge, making them more likely to be the ones who end up holding large amounts of power.

It's not that no one will want to work together. It's more that it doesn't matter what the majority does, only what those who accumulate large amounts of power do. And if they utilize their private security forces in unfair fashions, and start using -force- to get their way, and others have no recourse but the use of their own force... Doesn't that go against everything that Libertarianism stands for?

I see no manner for Libertarianism to meet it's own ends. It seems to me to be a call to replace the tyranny of the majority(which no modern government could really honestly be called) with the tyranny of the elite. So... business as usual then.