Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: Really, though, I propose stateless or minarchist Communism. People would voluntarily share the world's resources with little to no government getting in the way. By that, I don't mean in the sense of trade, but in the sense of use. Nobody would have implicit ownership of anything unless they're using it. Anybody can go up to anyone else and out of courtesy, ask, "Can I borrow this?" If they aren't using it, they have no basis upon which to say no.

So as soon as you leave your house I have the right to move in and claim ownership?
Yes. And when I come back, I can say, "Come on, man. Get out of my bed. OK, fine. I'll sleep on the couch."

You'll leave, eventually.

With lack of scarcity, you wouldn't even need to sleep in somebody else's house because you'd have your own. It's just a silly situation that'd never come up.

[Æ]

The government only has a right to justifiable force in protecting the individual and his property. Communism denies individual property and Capitalism blurs it. There is some truth to the accusation that contracts formed under monopolistic capitalistic governments are coercive. Individual ownership of property implies mutual exclusivity over the domain of that property and a system that in someway alters one's mutual exclusive control over that property is coercive.

[RueTheDay]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Contracts, in and of themselves, are not coercive. The coercion happens when one of the parties to a contract changes their mind about the contract and the other party then seeks the aid of a third party (either the government or, in the case of the anarchists, the "mutual protection agency") to ENFORCE the contract. It is the enforcement of the contract that is coercive, not the contract itself.

This depends upon the nature of the enforcement. An MPA would not be able to arrest and detain a person for violating a contract, nor FORCE the violator to do anything against his will. On the contrary the role of the MPA would be to make sure that it is in everyone’s best interests to uphold the contracts they enter into. Thus punitive action would consist of notifying all MPA’s and members of MPA’s that the violation occurred and that person then has a reputation for not upholding contracts. This automatically provides a disincentive to others to enter future contracts with the individual, making it harder and/or more costly for the individual to enter into future contractual relationships from employment, to getting a loan, to getting a bank account.

Ok, but that apears to contradict what you are about to say.....

Quote:
Quote: Libertarians, whose entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of quicksand (essentially the belief in the absolute power of property and contracts), have yet to demonstrate why a contract SHOULD always be enforced.

A contract is willingly entered into by all parties acting in their own interests. Once a contractual relationship is established an exchange has occurred. To violate the contract represents a theft.

So would MPAs punish theft or would they not? You can't claim that MPAs would not coercively enforce contracts and then in the next breath claim that a contract breach constitutes theft, unless you also believe that MPAs would NOT punish theft. So which is it?

MPA's would punish theft, but not coercively (as I understand it). My understanding is that MPA's would simply approach the theif with two alternatives. Pay off the debt incurred by their theft, including any penalties stipulated by his own MPA contract, or be put on a black list and essentially be shunned by the world. Imagine the choice. Pay the fine, or work it off under the MPA's offer, or live the rest of your life on the edge of society, always with a scarlet letter attached to your name. No one would engage in commerce with you, because you have a history of breaking contracts, you are a risk.

This makes the assumption that the thief is someone who wants to be a productive member of the community. A career criminal who has no intention of being a productive member of society couldn't give a rat's ass about being blacklisted by an MPA.

Also, what prevents a group of thieves from getting together and forming their own MPA-like organization that focuses on stealing, raping, and pillaging everyone else? Anarchists always seem to form the implicit assumption that criminals would always be individuals and thus weaker than the MPA; this discounts the possibility of organized crime, street gangs, mafias, drug lords, warlords, etc., all of which actually exist in the real world.

Quote:
In a sense we see how this would work in practice somewhat by looking at ebay and their auction feedback system. People are a lot less likely to trade with people who have bad feedback. The system has had remarkable success.

Again, this might work with a very limited subset of the eBay community, those who want to be legitimate businessmen but might occasionally be tempted to defraud people. It would have no effect whatsoever against dedicated scammers and phishers.

Quote:
Quote: Quote:
Take a cell phone contract as an example: I sign the contract agreeing to pay a monthly rate for my cell phone and the use of the cell phone companies infrastructure to make calls. The phone immediately becomes my property, on the condition that I maintain my contract for a minimum of two years. I have exchanged my promise of continued subscription for a two year period for a new phone and the right to use it. If I were to cancel my subscription prior to the end of the two year period without paying the fines stipulated in my contract, that action would be a theft against the sell phone company.

No, it would not be theft, it would be breach of contract.

As much as it makes me feel dirty to say it, Rothbard would agree with me on this as well.

Yes certainly it would be breach of contract, but you also haven't finished paying off your phone... that would be theft, unless you returned it or something.

Ok, for the sake of argument, I sign a two year contract for cell phone service and after 6 months decide I don't want the service anymore and send the cell phone back to the company and refuse to pay for anything after that period. Do you still consider that theft?

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: Yes. And when I come back, I can say, "Come on, man. Get out of my bed. OK, fine. I'll sleep on the couch."

No, it's my house now. Get out.

Nathyn wrote: You'll leave, eventually.

Depends on how much food you have. But then again, anyone can walk in and take whatever I'm not eating at the particular moment. I could even walk up and take food off your plate so long as it's not on your fork. I can also take any books you aren't reading that the moment, your computer when you aren't on it, your job when you aren't working at it, your wife when you aren't having sexual intercourse with her, your children when you aren't with them, your car when you aren't driving it, and your money when you aren't spending it.

Nathyn wrote: With lack of scarcity, you wouldn't even need to sleep in somebody else's house because you'd have your own. It's just a silly situation that'd never come up.

How am I going to get my own house? Is the government going to provide me with one? How is it going to be paid for? Who's going to protect it from other people walking in and claiming it when I'm not home? What about apartments? Are you really planning on providing homes for 100% of the population?