Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, there is nowhere on God's green earth you can get away from organized humanity, aka the State, that alone should throw up red flags for anyone who thinks any form of anarchy is possible. The problem with anarchy is people don't naturally want to be free of a "state" Put 10 people in a room and it's naturally going to organize. Someone will take charge, a hierarchy could be established, or some sort of vote will be established. There'sa high pprobability someone will be forced to go along with the groups decisions, aka rules and/or laws. That's not anarchy, that's the formation of the state.
Personally, I just believe in one more 'organized group of humanity' or 'collective' or 'fill in the blank name for the concept' ... than they do, their's.
Anarchists are the ones claiming corporations couldn't exist. Beyond the semantics argument, the burden is on you to explain why these companies woudn't have disproportionate influence without a state.
This is where they always fall short and the argument ends. They can't (or won't?) answer the question rationally.
If everyone owns it, no one owns it. Read "tragedy of the commons" for further reference. An owner of a resource will have skin in the game and is best steward of said resource. Not to mention ownership extends beyond ones physical body.
Ownership can extend beyond sole ownership. When the workers in an individual factory all own that workplace it feels like there own.
Furthermore individual ownership (or personal property) is obviously a thing despite it not being yourself; private property on the other hand extends beyond influence over said property, it can account for ‘invisible’ control where power over some land or items are limited by individuals who exert power beyond their own influence causing an unbalanced level of control.
The problem I mentioned is unclaimed land being acquired before the population naturally reaches such a level where that would be the case leading to the end of free movement by individuals. So far I have not received an answer.
The main point I'll make is this: The only thing that matters, at least to me, is what is correct. What's the truth? We have a methodology for that called philosophy - logic and reason.
Applying logic and reason to the state's legitimacy makes it disappear. If it's wrong for an individual to do X, that individual can't just vote for someone else to do it for them. We go out for lunch and I want pizza, but it would be wrong if I forced you to buy pizza too. I also can't elect the guy sitting next to us to force you to buy pizza either. If we were in a group of 10 and 9 of us decided you have to buy pizza, we still can't just force you to buy it. There's just no way to justify it.
9 out of 10 voted to go get some pizza and you voted against. You object against having to chip in for the price of the pizza because you claim that you didn't want any. The others tell you that if you don't want pizza then you can go eat somewhere else by yourself but you object to that too because you want to stay with the group. So you relent and throw in a few bucks. When the pizza comes, you happily gobble it up, eating way more than you paid for. When the others point out your hypocrisy, you just shrug your shoulders. An-Caps in a nutshell.
This is where they always fall short and the argument ends. They can't (or won't?) answer the question rationally.
The question is nonsensical. What is the difference between a corporation and a business? When you know the difference the question shows itself to be nonsensical.
Businesses exist in the An-Cap philosophy. Corporations cannot exist in that philosophy, since there is no state to sanction legal powers for the corporation, the business is only imbued with the same powers as the owner(s), and the owner(s) are responsible for the actions of their business.
They can’t because capitalist agree with the main principle of statists, invisible control.
It's not invisible. Control is through force. All private property is gained from the use of force and kept through the threat if force. Individuals are able to keep property that is beyond their personal means to use and maintain because they have the threat of force from a government that backs their claims to that property.
The question is nonsensical. What is the difference between a corporation and a business? When you know the difference the question shows itself to be nonsensical.
Businesses exist in the An-Cap philosophy. Corporations cannot exist in that philosophy, since there is no state to sanction legal powers for the corporation, the business is only imbued with the same powers as the owner(s), and the owner(s) are responsible for the actions of their business.
So whats to stop a large business buying up lots of land and then using a private army to gain even more control? Nothing because the businesses would become the de facto state.
9 out of 10 voted to go get some pizza and you voted against. You object against having to chip in for the price of the pizza because you claim that you didn't want any. The others tell you that if you don't want pizza then you can go eat somewhere else by yourself but you object to that too because you want to stay with the group. So you relent and throw in a few bucks. When the pizza comes, you happily gobble it up, eating way more than you paid for. When the others point out your hypocrisy, you just shrug your shoulders. An-Caps in a nutshell.
No, you're changing the scenario. Everyone decided to go out to eat, but one person wants to order something besides pizza, and the rest think they have the right to force that person to chip in for their pizza. They may even "allow" the person to order something else too, but only after they pay the group's pizza fee.
It all comes down to consent. If the agreement before going to the restaurant was that everyone would chip in for a pizza, it would be hypocritical to complain when you're asked to pay. When others limit your choices and force you to do things you didn't agree to, complaints are legitimate.
If you want to get really nitpicky, a restaurant is a bad analogy, since it's private property and you don't own any property within the restaurant. A better analogy might be inviting people over to your house for dinner, and then they dictate to you who is allowed at the dinner party, what will be served, how much you need to buy, etc.
It's not invisible. Control is through force. All private property is gained from the use of force and kept through the threat if force. Individuals are able to keep property that is beyond their personal means to use and maintain because they have the threat of force from a government that backs their claims to that property.
You have this correct, but the bold isn't limited to government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
