pull down to refresh
8 sats \ 14 replies \ @aljaz OP 20 Aug \ parent \ on: What is PROPERTY? BooksAndArticles
you assume that people don't defend their property or won't make coalition, partnerships, pay enforcement agencies on a free market to enforce the rules?
society doesn't collapse because you don't have a fat bureaucrat 1000km away telling you want is best for you and how you should live your life. Many animals manage to establish societies and live in groups yet somehow humans need to have a ruler because otherwise everything falls apart?
tribes existed for a long time before any nation state government started imposing their will and involving itself with every aspect of your life. You just assume that because you can't think of a different way that this is the only way. Services that governments provide can (and are usually done much better) be provided by businesses as that is exactly what a government is suppose to be - a service. Not a tyranny of majority that doesn't exist, with ever expanding coercion and singular power across everything in your life.
I am certain people will quite urgently make a 'coalition'...its also called a government.
Governments via taxes are precisely the paid 'enforcement agencies' that enforce property rights.
Remove government and most people will very rapidly, almost in a panic, seek to form one!
Because it is governments that secure and fairly governed property rights can be established.
Nowhere ever has any other reality existed.
Sure governments are flawed -more or less and approximately in proportion to the laziness and apathy of the people they govern, but they are a fundamental requirement if you want to have any possibility consistent and fair property rights.
Without government you can and may well try to defend your 'property rights', but if someone is stronger they will nevertheless be able take 'your property' from you.
reply
I was born and raised in Somalia, so I witnessed firsthand that life can function with little to no state.
When the state collapsed in 1991, everything related to governance fell apart completely. You could find machine guns everywhere, sometimes for free, and even tanks if you wanted.
The first five years were absolute chaos, especially in the main cities, because society went from 100% state control to almost none.
But by the late ’90s and early 2000s, in the city where I grew up, life actually became better than in many places with functioning states.
There was almost no centralized administration, yet the city had one of the best telecommunications networks, excellent doctors, good schools, and remarkable peace. People could walk around with thousands of dollars without fear of robbery, and the high level of freedom.
I am not saying everything was 100% perfect but the lesson learned is that societies, tribes, and individuals can govern themselves and provide state services through private businesses. But the main weakness was that people didn’t have plan for stopping outside interventions, which eventually destroyed and gave rise the current situation.
reply
Yes in Somalia in the lack of a centralised internationally recognised government people reverted to operating under traditional clan based common law and Sharia Courts also became powerful.
The problem was if you were a member of a small less powerful clan and had a dispute with someone from a more powerful one.
And as you note it left all Somalia open to and vulnerable to outside intervention many led by US agencies who disliked the proliferation of what they saw as support and security for terrorist Islamic organisations.
You do not mention where you reside now but clearly it is not Somalia - the state of confusion and tension between the government eventually installed in some parts and continued warring for control by multiple factions goes on.
Any devoted advocate of Libertarian principles is welcome to go live in Somalia and experience life under clan based and Sharia law- but fuck all if any ever have because for most rational people it would be an utter shithole to live in if you had the option of instead moving to somewhere with stable government and consistent rule of law not dependent upon which family, clan or religion you belong to.
reply
i understand now why you love governments so much @Solomonsatoshi, its because you think you know everything better than anyone, no matter how close to the thing they are. its a match made in heaven and explains everything very clearly.
reply
Are you not curious as to why @252 left Somalia and where they moved to?
Is it somewhere there is a stable government and rule of law by chance?
Or did they relocate to another haven for pirates and terrorists?
Do any Libertarians live in Somalia under clan and Sharia law?
Maybe you are planning to relocate there since you hate all governments so much?
If not why not?
reply
I was talking about a specific period of time (1995–2005) and the city where I grew up, which had a population of more than 200k. During those years, there were no Islamic/Sharia courts, no warlords, and no terrorism. There was only minimal/very limited “administration,” and even that was local to the city.
Yes, some clans were larger and others smaller, but in those 10 years there were no major disputes.
Besides your insult, many non Somalis also lived there peacefully during that period including my teachers.
My point is that this particular time and place could be case study of no centralized state.
reply
Yes there was no centralised state but there were at a clan and community level the reintroduction of clan based common laws and depending upon which clan you belonged to your access to property rights and justice varied.
You claim to have grown up there but provide no evidence- it could be a claim made out of convenience given the lack of historical examples of any successful economy ever existing in the absence of government and the fondness of some libertarians to reference this era in Somalia despite the appalling conditions most Somalia live under.
Why did you leave and where did you move to? You refuse to answer this too.
I suggest you are a fabrication and cannot and will not substantiate your claims.
You give no examples of any Libertarians who moved to Somalia to enjoy the experiment in non centralised government which was unfolding- because Libertarians are big on talk but not so much on action.
They like most people depend upon the stability and security that governments deliver and do not in reality want to be thrown into a clan based Sharia Law state of anarchy.
The fact is the predominance of Sharia law and absence of other centralised authority made Somalia an attractive place for Muslim extremists, pirates and terrorists and such a state was not tolerated by other nations who eventually put in place the current nominal centralised government.
Nobody or area lives in sufficient isolation to neighbouring jurisdictions to harbour pirates and terrorists and believe that is acceptable.
reply
i think for starters we need to define the terms we're using, because narrow contract enforcement agency is very far from what nowadays government looks.
contract enforcement on voluntary basis is VERY different to the extortion the governments of the world are doing now where you are forced into a relationship you never wanted nor needed in most cases.
reply
Most people want the protection of government - for good reason.
It is the only proven reliable way to enable consistent property rights.
What you are proposing is everyone must defend themselves, form a group or hire muscle to protect their property- that's closer to mafia or law of the jungle.
At least with governments everyone within a jurisdiction comes under the same laws and agencies of enforcement and has some ability to change or have influence over the government they are subject to.
reply
the government is mafia - because if you don't pay them they will come and fuck you up. what i'm proposing is that people have a choice and are not forced into anything, which is exactly the opposite of what you're advocating for because now I MUST pay whatever taxes or regulation the government wants to impose on me otherwise they come and take my shit, my freedom or my life. I have no choice, I can leave but I can only do it on their terms, unless I'm willing to go into the wilderness and throw my passport away and have no contact with "civilized world".
You seem to be very eager to give up on everything just because of a potential scenario yet don't see that all of this is already happening to you, you've just been told its the best way. Your property is not being protected, its being take away from you. at an exceptionally high rate.
reply
I consider the taxes I pay extremely good value for money...compared to the alternatives.
As you say you are always free to leave the jurisdiction of the government you currently feel so oppressed by but you will not because if you were to go anywhere where there is no government you would find it extremely uncomfortable and probably life threatening.
There are places with little or no effective government but you will not go there because they are fucking hell holes.
BTW- I agree that government can be and usually are to some degree flawed if not corrupt- usually to the extent citizens allow them to be.
I have fought my own government directly through the courts on one occasion and many times through criticism and protest be cause we need to try to keep them honest or they will never be!
Governments are ultimately only able to do what citizens allow them to do and most citizens are lazy apathetic bleating sheep who do as they are told and get what they deserve.
There is nowhere and I doubt there ever will be where people behave in the highly principled manner that an absence of government would require for any degree of prosperity and security - but if you believe me wrong GO to somewhere with no functional government and see how it is!
But no, you will not- instead you will remain living under the benefit of your government but complaining how unfair it all is.
reply
Your mainstream definition of the tax code is not the reality. There is no exchange of value being made. If you follow the monetary transactions from beginning to end you'll see that it boils down to someone with no skills aside from intimidation and deception demanding money from productive workers who have no means to defend themselves. Those useless bureaucrats then spend that money on frivolous and violent self-serving pet projects that would never have been approved by a free market. Not to mention they're also running a ponzi scheme to raise tax revenue deceptively, without any public negotiation and without full transparency of how the government's monetary system is actually operating.
The fact that some countries in a state of pure anarchy and war are technically without government is a poor excuse for the way governments attack civilians during peacetime, and they might indeed be better off temporarily cycling through such a state than dealing with semi-peaceful slave drivers indefinitely.
The simple act of owning Bitcoin is effectively separating oneself from government manipulation, and that's why the individual who hoards it eventually discovers a better quality of life and a higher degree of freedom than if they bought in to the government's platitudes about altruism being the supreme good.
reply
You are wrong.
Governments provide rule of law and protection from potentially hostile foreign entities including other governments.
Read some history.
Governments also provide infrastructure and services like health and education, roading, food standards, environmental protection, building codes and social welfare.
You can argue the merits of these services but they are provided and are decided based on the demands from citizens and industry.
A nation without government cannot project its power- it is defenseless against foreign capture and control.
The wealth of nations largely depends on the quality of government they enjoy.
Seeking to remove government because it is always to some degree flawed is flawed reasoning as without government you cannot function as a competitive entity in the global environment.
Regarding Bitcoin- it is a good example of how government can over reach its mandate- I agree the issuance of money is a process that is arguably better left to the market- and Bitcoin does this brilliantly- and we do have historical precedent where money was issued by private banks, not governments and where the economy was arguably stronger.
I like Bitcoin because it frees me from debasement governments and bankers engineered and forced upon me for most of my life and now Bitcoin frees me from their over reach to some degree.
The banks and governments have gone too far and Bitcoin brings back some balance- that is why I hold Bitcoin...not for NGU...though that's a nice bonus!
So dont get me wrong- I do not blindly follow and accept government - I instead believe government is to some degree unavoidable and up to a point valuable, but also that it must be kept in check and we must do that.
reply
If I hold a gun to a taxi driver's head and compel him to drive me or anyone else around for free, that doesn't make me the provider of public transportation. The worker is still the one providing the service. The fact that some other psycho might do the same thing or worse is no reason for me to be doing it.
Bitcoin, if adopted fully, severely cripples the government's ability to exercise that kind of control. To use the US as an example, if they have 200,000 bitcoins, that's about $24 billion worth if BTC. But they spend about $6 trillion USD annually. There's no closing that gap. That represents trillions in wealth that gets released into the market's control if USD loses its social status.