5
6

"Anarcho-capitalism is impossible. Capitalism requires an indisputable defender of property rights, called a state" .:. X-post from /r/CapitalismVSocialism (reddit.com)

Anen-o-meConcurrent-Nomocracy: "Rule of the self by the self." が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Absurd_Rebellion -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

You dont need a state for defending private property at all - it should be the owner of the private property's responsibly alone to defend it. If they cant, they dont deserve that property, and only those that can defend their property will own it.

[–]Katie4321Niccolò Machiavelli 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

it should be the owner of the private property's responsibly alone to defend it. If they cant, they dont deserve that property, and only those that can defend their property will own it.

Then property rights are meaningless. The only thing that matters is might makes right. Anybody can steal and pillage, and if they can get away with it then the property becomes theirs. Capitalism can't exist without property rights, and property rights can't exist if the only "law" is the law of the jungle.

But go ahead, just call me a troll because you can't figure out how to resolve this contradiction, like all the other ancaps. It doesn't even matter what form of dispute resolution you concoct. If it's voluntary, then it's not even binding in the first place, it's not even law, just advice from a bunch of guys in wigs without any means of enforcement. If it's involuntary, then it is a state.

[–]mentilsoupQuietist 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're describing the current state of things - the inherited global anarchy.

Property rights still exist.

[–]Katie4321Niccolò Machiavelli 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're describing the current state of things - the inherited global anarchy.

Nope. I'm talking about the theoretical situation called ancapistan. It contadicts itself, even in theory.

Property rights don't really exist without a means of enforcement. Any voluntary means of enforcement is not even enforcement. Any involuntary means of enforcement is the state.

[–]haqshenas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In fact, you could define a state as an entity that is in the business of enforcing property rights.

[–]haqshenas 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

only those that can defend their property will own it.

I suppose in that case we are already living Anarcho-Capitalism. The states can defend their property, and even collect rent on it. Nobody else deserves it anyway, since nobody else is as strong.

[–]Anen-o-meConcurrent-Nomocracy: "Rule of the self by the self."[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Regardless, if you have an individual right to defend your land, you can delegate that to an agent, i.e.: security company.