Freedomain Radio

Given the controversy over the recent Casey Anthony verdict, I have been thinking a bit lately about how murderers would be brought to justice in a free market.

Just what sort of concessions would you have to make to DROs with regard to crime investigation if you became a suspect? Just how much power would you have to sign over to them? If the DRO is your lawyer and the lawyer of the accused victim, whose side will they be on? How much authority will they have to search your apartment and your things?

What sort of convictions would we get? Would a free market produce a court system that would convict someone like Casey Anthony despite lack of evidence, or a court system that would acquit Casey Anthony because of lack of evidence? Would the free market lean toward the more popular, more bloodthirsty position?

Which would you prefer?

sweatingbanshee:

Given the controversy over the recent Casey Anthony verdict, I have been thinking a bit lately about how murderers would be brought to justice in a free market.

Just what sort of concessions would you have to make to DROs with regard to crime investigation if you became a suspect? Just how much power would you have to sign over to them? If the DRO is your lawyer and the lawyer of the accused victim, whose side will they be on? How much authority will they have to search your apartment and your things?

What sort of convictions would we get? Would a free market produce a court system that would convict someone like Casey Anthony despite lack of evidence, or a court system that would acquit Casey Anthony because of lack of evidence? Would the free market lean toward the more popular, more bloodthirsty position?

Which would you prefer?

 

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

It will optimize itself according to some set of criteria. That is all that can be said.

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

 

Well the market always solves some optimization problem. The question to ask yourself is if that solution is justified.

In the presence of non-mutual property rights I would contest that the solution is not justified.

Of course the State cannot do anything productive, so it is not the answer. But Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer either (it is a mathematical answer not a philosophically justified answer). True Anarchism is the ultimate answer in my opinion.

Dissilusionist:

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

 

Well the market always solves some optimization problem. The question to ask yourself is if that solution is justified.

In the presence of non-mutual property rights I would contest that the solution is not justified.

Of course the State cannot do anything productive, so it is not the answer. But Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer either (it is a mathematical answer not a philosophically justified answer). True Anarchism is the ultimate answer in my opinion.

I'm interested what you mean by true anarchism?

MarkIX:

Dissilusionist:

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

 

Well the market always solves some optimization problem. The question to ask yourself is if that solution is justified.

In the presence of non-mutual property rights I would contest that the solution is not justified.

Of course the State cannot do anything productive, so it is not the answer. But Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer either (it is a mathematical answer not a philosophically justified answer). True Anarchism is the ultimate answer in my opinion.

I'm interested what you mean by true anarchism?

To put it simply, Property is different from the Right to Property.

Property can be justified through an argument from exhaustian/performative contradiction.

However, the Right to Property cannot be justified without mutual contract. (Any proposed action taken in reality to establish the Right to Property violates is/ought)

 

Therfore some form of Mutualism is the only philosophically justifiable way to hold Property in a Stateless Society, unless of course people mutually agree to allow the RIght to Property under whatever rules they unanimously choose.

 

There is a thread on Mutualism where I make this case explicit. Suffice it to say neither capitalism, nor communism, nor socialism are philosophically justifiable. All these formulations take the Right to Property as a priori valid, which it is not.

Dissilusionist:

MarkIX:

Dissilusionist:

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

 

Well the market always solves some optimization problem. The question to ask yourself is if that solution is justified.

In the presence of non-mutual property rights I would contest that the solution is not justified.

Of course the State cannot do anything productive, so it is not the answer. But Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer either (it is a mathematical answer not a philosophically justified answer). True Anarchism is the ultimate answer in my opinion.

I'm interested what you mean by true anarchism?

To put it simply, Property is different from the Right to Property.

Property can be justified through an argument from exhaustian/performative contradiction.

However, the Right to Property cannot be justified without mutual contract. (Any proposed action taken in reality to establish the Right to Property violates is/ought)

 

Therfore some form of Mutualism is the only philosophically justifiable way to hold Property in a Stateless Society, unless of course people mutually agree to allow the RIght to Property under whatever rules they unanimously choose.

 

There is a thread on Mutualism where I make this case explicit. Suffice it to say neither capitalism, nor communism, nor socialism are philosophically justifiable. All these formulations take the Right to Property as a priori valid, which it is not.

Lieing about philosophical positions you don't understand - and then making the same errors you accuse others of - is usually not considered good debating technique. You might want to try not making claims that aren't true, and using confusing that with your own ill defined terminology, especially when your claims have been explicitly refuted in other threads.

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

MarkIX:

Dissilusionist:

Agalloch:

Dissilusionist:

Asking individuals what the free market would do is to not understand the free market.

This.

Speculation can be interesting mental masterbation, but serves only to waste the time of people who don't already know that the Market will solve any given problem, and that by definition the State cannot.

 

Well the market always solves some optimization problem. The question to ask yourself is if that solution is justified.

In the presence of non-mutual property rights I would contest that the solution is not justified.

Of course the State cannot do anything productive, so it is not the answer. But Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer either (it is a mathematical answer not a philosophically justified answer). True Anarchism is the ultimate answer in my opinion.

I'm interested what you mean by true anarchism?

To put it simply, Property is different from the Right to Property.

Property can be justified through an argument from exhaustian/performative contradiction.

However, the Right to Property cannot be justified without mutual contract. (Any proposed action taken in reality to establish the Right to Property violates is/ought)

 

Therfore some form of Mutualism is the only philosophically justifiable way to hold Property in a Stateless Society, unless of course people mutually agree to allow the RIght to Property under whatever rules they unanimously choose.

 

There is a thread on Mutualism where I make this case explicit. Suffice it to say neither capitalism, nor communism, nor socialism are philosophically justifiable. All these formulations take the Right to Property as a priori valid, which it is not.

Lieing about philosophical positions you don't understand - and then making the same errors you accuse others of - is usually not considered good debating technique. You might want to try not making claims that aren't true, and using confusing that with your own ill defined terminology, especially when your claims have been explicitly refuted in other threads.

I am literally paraphrasing Proudhon from memory. Do you understand the difference between the Right to Property vs Property vs Posession as I defined them in my post? I define my terms very clearly in the thread.

If I have made a mistake in my analysis in the post I refered him to please correct me.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/24349.aspx

@Dissilusionist

I suppose if I was to call myself an anarchist I would call myself a geo-anarchist but I haven't read the works of Prodhoun. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between rights of property and property itself so I'm going to ask a question about were the line is. Say I build a mud brick house put some stuff in it, and then go away somewhere for some reason, is that house available for others to use? Does it matter how long it stays unoccupied? What is the responsibilty of someone who destroys the house?

MarkIX:

@Dissilusionist

I suppose if I was to call myself an anarchist I would call myself a geo-anarchist but I haven't read the works of Prodhoun. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between rights of property and property itself so I'm going to ask a question about were the line is. Say I build a mud brick house put some stuff in it, and then go away somewhere for some reason, is that house available for others to use? Does it matter how long it stays unoccupied? What is the responsibilty of someone who destroys the house?

Under what I call strict Mutualism as soon as you break physical contact with an object you have abdicated property over the object (property is a current state of exclusive control, not a claim to a future state of control which is a right to property), and in principle someone else can enter "your" house thereby making it their property.

Strict Mutualism is the only a priori justified position. However; even people who understand this usually do not advocate strict Mutualism. The point of this exercise is to realize that the right to property only arises through a voluntary and explicit unanimous social contract (not the bullshit involuntary one we have now). It follows that the right to property, as I have described it in the Mutualism post, can be legitimately created, but it is granted by society and is not a priori valid. Therefore; society has the legitimate authority in limiting the wealth an individual has the right to property over.

 

So under non-strict Mutualism I cannot say much about what happens in those situations, no answer I give is a priori valid. The point is society as a whole must voluntarily and unanimously decide on most of these issues (the only thing society cannot impose on is property). The closest largely known forms of Anarchism/Libertarianism which coincide with this position are libertarian socialism, and Anarcho-syndaclism.

 

If you want a rigorous analysis see the post in the economics forum (I believe) concerning Mutualism. The OP really does not understand it, and I decided to play the devils advocate for the position. It also goes into the difference between property and the right to property in great detail.

 

I have never heard of geo-Anarchism. Could you tell me about it I would be interested in hearing about it?

Under what I call strict Mutualism as soon as you break physical contact with an object you have abdicated property over the object (property is a current state of exclusive control, not a claim to a future state of control which is a right to property), and in principle someone else can enter "your" house thereby making it their property.

Strict Mutualism is the only a priori justified position. However; even people who understand this usually do not advocate strict Mutualism. The point of this exercise is to realize that the right to property only arises through a voluntary and explicit unanimous social contract (not the bullshit involuntary one we have now). It follows that the right to property, as I have described it in the Mutualism post, can be legitimately created, but it is granted by society and is not a priori valid. Therefore; society has the legitimate authority in limiting the wealth an individual has the right to property over.

If I am not mistaken you consider yourself a strict mutualist, correct? You also place a great deal of emphasis on rationality, so I find it hard to believe that you would see yourself as a strict mutualist when from what I can tell it seems to be a rather absurd position. You are saying that a person can spend weeks, months, possibly even years building a house, and then go to the grocery store and someone can just walk in and claim the house as their own...legitimately under mutualism? I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Left, not because their positions are sound but because I see their intentions as good, but misguided. One of the things that the Left (Mutualism would be considered part of the left) values most is fairness, are you really telling me that it would be fair for the guy who spent weeks/months/years to build a house and then lose it the moment he leaves for the shortest amount of time? Furthermore, what do you think the purpose of property and property rights are? Isn't their purpose to reduce conflict between people by allowing people to claim land which they and they alone have exclusive access to? If a person invested a huge amount of time into building a house or enough to buy a car, do you really think that a conflict wouldn't arise when someone just comes along and steals it while it isn't being used? 

Serpentis-Lucis:

Under what I call strict Mutualism as soon as you break physical contact with an object you have abdicated property over the object (property is a current state of exclusive control, not a claim to a future state of control which is a right to property), and in principle someone else can enter "your" house thereby making it their property.

Strict Mutualism is the only a priori justified position. However; even people who understand this usually do not advocate strict Mutualism. The point of this exercise is to realize that the right to property only arises through a voluntary and explicit unanimous social contract (not the bullshit involuntary one we have now). It follows that the right to property, as I have described it in the Mutualism post, can be legitimately created, but it is granted by society and is not a priori valid. Therefore; society has the legitimate authority in limiting the wealth an individual has the right to property over.

If I am not mistaken you consider yourself a strict mutualist, correct? You also place a great deal of emphasis on rationality, so I find it hard to believe that you would see yourself as a strict mutualist when from what I can tell it seems to be a rather absurd position. You are saying that a person can spend weeks, months, possibly even years building a house, and then go to the grocery store and someone can just walk in and claim the house as their own...legitimately under mutualism? I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Left, not because their positions are sound but because I see their intentions as good, but misguided. One of the things that the Left (Mutualism would be considered part of the left) values most is fairness, are you really telling me that it would be fair for the guy who spent weeks/months/years to build a house and then lose it the moment he leaves for the shortest amount of time? Furthermore, what do you think the purpose of property and property rights are? Isn't their purpose to reduce conflict between people by allowing people to claim land which they and they alone have exclusive access to? If a person invested a huge amount of time into building a house or enough to buy a car, do you really think that a conflict wouldn't arise when someone just comes along and steals it while it isn't being used? 

 

If you read what I said closely, I do not advocate strict Mutualism. I only acknowledge that it is the only a priori justified system. I am rational to the extreme, so I must accept the justified position, but this does not prevent me from advocating the right to property.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that in order to invoke the right to property (in excess of property) mutual consent is necessary. A voluntary explicit social contract is necessary for the right to property to be valid (in excess of simply property).

Strict mutualism is merely the a priori position that cannot be argued against. Stronger positions can be justified, but it must be justified unanimously.

Mutualism has nothing to do with Left vs Right, I do not even know what those words mean. I only care about what the philosophically justified position is.

 

If I built a nice house and someone tried to take it from me, I would shoot him. But I wouldn't claim that I was justified in protecting my right to property if I have not entered into a valid social contract. If I was in my house when it happened, then all the better, since the invasion is a violation of property not right to propety and cannot be argued against.

It is my opinion that use is the only legitimate way to invoke the right to property, but this is not a priori valid. I'm sorry but my opinions bow to logic.

Dissilusionist:

MarkIX:

@Dissilusionist

I suppose if I was to call myself an anarchist I would call myself a geo-anarchist but I haven't read the works of Prodhoun. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between rights of property and property itself so I'm going to ask a question about were the line is. Say I build a mud brick house put some stuff in it, and then go away somewhere for some reason, is that house available for others to use? Does it matter how long it stays unoccupied? What is the responsibilty of someone who destroys the house?

Under what I call strict Mutualism as soon as you break physical contact with an object you have abdicated property over the object (property is a current state of exclusive control, not a claim to a future state of control which is a right to property), and in principle someone else can enter "your" house thereby making it their property.

Since that house stands only due to the application of my labour, how is that different to asserting a "right" to my labour?

Strict Mutualism is the only a priori justified position. However; even people who understand this usually do not advocate strict Mutualism.

I'm not sure what you mean bt a priori, but I looked it up and it sounds like "first principles" what are the principles from which it is argued, because I can't tell.

The point of this exercise is to realize that the right to property only arises through a voluntary and explicit unanimous social contract (not the bullshit involuntary one we have now).

I agree that the one we have now is bullshit where everything is owned by the "state"

It follows that the right to property, as I have described it in the Mutualism post, can be legitimately created, but it is granted by society and is not a priori valid. Therefore; society has the legitimate authority in limiting the wealth an individual has the right to property over.

But to say that "society" can judge things is to say that individuals as a group have more "rights" than individuals alone, or are you saying something else?

 

So under non-strict Mutualism I cannot say much about what happens in those situations, no answer I give is a priori valid. The point is society as a whole must voluntarily and unanimously decide on most of these issues (the only thing society cannot impose on is property). The closest largely known forms of Anarchism/Libertarianism which coincide with this position are libertarian socialism, and Anarcho-syndaclism.

The problem I find with Soc_synd ideology (and it may just be my perecption) is that it seems to be suggesting that having more than others no matter how aquired is a form of aggression and as such is just another race to the bottom.

 

If you want a rigorous analysis see the post in the economics forum (I believe) concerning Mutualism. The OP really does not understand it, and I decided to play the devils advocate for the position. It also goes into the difference between property and the right to property in great detail.

I think I read that but this is the thread I asked the question on. I don't think it's too off topic because most "criminality" is judged around property issues.

 

I have never heard of geo-Anarchism. Could you tell me about it I would be interested in hearing about it?

If you have never heard of it perhaps I invented it, but I doubt it. I would describe it as a form of non-strict Mutualism using your terms. My position basically comes form the idea "You can't say that someone is free to exist is they have no place where they can exist freely" from this through, a whole series of mental gymnastics that may or may not be correct, I derive the principle that land "property" owned by "everybody" and if you want to "use" land then you compensate everybody else for the use of that land. Practically this  means that you rent your land and the rent is distributed to everybody including yourself, thereby compensating others for the use of "Their" land. NOt entirely sure if it's practical but the book GOVERNING THE COMMONS The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,By Elinor Ostrom certainly shed some light for me. Really what I want to do at the moment is test wether it's morally and ethically sound.

MarkIX:

Dissilusionist:

MarkIX:

@Dissilusionist

I suppose if I was to call myself an anarchist I would call myself a geo-anarchist but I haven't read the works of Prodhoun. I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between rights of property and property itself so I'm going to ask a question about were the line is. Say I build a mud brick house put some stuff in it, and then go away somewhere for some reason, is that house available for others to use? Does it matter how long it stays unoccupied? What is the responsibilty of someone who destroys the house?

Under what I call strict Mutualism as soon as you break physical contact with an object you have abdicated property over the object (property is a current state of exclusive control, not a claim to a future state of control which is a right to property), and in principle someone else can enter "your" house thereby making it their property.

Since that house stands only due to the application of my labour, how is that different to asserting a "right" to my labour?

Strict Mutualism is the only a priori justified position. However; even people who understand this usually do not advocate strict Mutualism.

I'm not sure what you mean bt a priori, but I looked it up and it sounds like "first principles" what are the principles from which it is argued, because I can't tell.

The point of this exercise is to realize that the right to property only arises through a voluntary and explicit unanimous social contract (not the bullshit involuntary one we have now).

I agree that the one we have now is bullshit where everything is owned by the "state"

It follows that the right to property, as I have described it in the Mutualism post, can be legitimately created, but it is granted by society and is not a priori valid. Therefore; society has the legitimate authority in limiting the wealth an individual has the right to property over.

But to say that "society" can judge things is to say that individuals as a group have more "rights" than individuals alone, or are you saying something else?

 

So under non-strict Mutualism I cannot say much about what happens in those situations, no answer I give is a priori valid. The point is society as a whole must voluntarily and unanimously decide on most of these issues (the only thing society cannot impose on is property). The closest largely known forms of Anarchism/Libertarianism which coincide with this position are libertarian socialism, and Anarcho-syndaclism.

The problem I find with Soc_synd ideology (and it may just be my perecption) is that it seems to be suggesting that having more than others no matter how aquired is a form of aggression and as such is just another race to the bottom.

 

If you want a rigorous analysis see the post in the economics forum (I believe) concerning Mutualism. The OP really does not understand it, and I decided to play the devils advocate for the position. It also goes into the difference between property and the right to property in great detail.

I think I read that but this is the thread I asked the question on. I don't think it's too off topic because most "criminality" is judged around property issues.

 

I have never heard of geo-Anarchism. Could you tell me about it I would be interested in hearing about it?

If you have never heard of it perhaps I invented it, but I doubt it. I would describe it as a form of non-strict Mutualism using your terms. My position basically comes form the idea "You can't say that someone is free to exist is they have no place where they can exist freely" from this through, a whole series of mental gymnastics that may or may not be correct, I derive the principle that land "property" owned by "everybody" and if you want to "use" land then you compensate everybody else for the use of that land. Practically this  means that you rent your land and the rent is distributed to everybody including yourself, thereby compensating others for the use of "Their" land. NOt entirely sure if it's practical but the book GOVERNING THE COMMONS The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,By Elinor Ostrom certainly shed some light for me. Really what I want to do at the moment is test wether it's morally and ethically sound.

 

Strict Mutualism arises from the argument by performative contradiction that Stefan often uses (but wrongly applies to right to property as opposed to property).

I did read up on geo-Anarchism by the way. I see it as a very sensible compromise between Strict Mutualism and Anarcho-Capitalism. I would certainly wish to live in that system than either of the extremes.

Mutualism is not soc or synd by the way. It is individualist Anarchism just like the Anarcho-Capitalism or Geo-Anarchism, it simply acknowledges that any attempt to establish the right to property outside of social contract violates is/ought. 

Geo-Anarchism is very compatible with the Mutualist framework by the way, and I would loosely consider it a form of Mutualism. 

But isn't asking what the free market would produce sort of a means of taking a poll? Our preferences were asked. Our preferences determine the market.

I subscribe to the "better that 100 guilty men go free..." ideology, but the market of preferences will determine what sort of justice will be available, and what standards of evidence are required.

I like the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; I don't like the misuse of statistics, scientific evidence, and the push of plausible stories as establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt.