The question is not so much whether one is "anti-liberty" and more what one thinks constitutes liberty. Anarcho-socialists might consider wage labor not much better than slavery. They may be wrong in their analysis, but the core problem remains that "freedom" or "liberty" is a fundamentally contested term. Most people have their intuitions about what liberty means, but few have a systematic approach. I myself find Kant's notion of "liberty as duty", to put it very briefly, quite compelling. This is, presumably, quite a different basis than the one from which classical libertarians argue. — Echarmion

Yes, I made this point with Noah de Stroete. One ought not to prejudge what liberty means; rather, one ought to develop a system of rights which seeks to preserve liberty, and the libertarian does this through private property rights and the non-aggression principle. That these principles are more conducive to liberty than any competing principle is (or should be) a libertarian conclusion, not a presupposition.

This is, however, fundamentally a question of efficiency, not about knowledge. The libertarian approach is not that we should make use of market-based mechanism where those are most efficient, but that an approach based on individual self-interests is the right one - and the only right one - for all circumstances. — Echarmion

I am not sure that this really is a libertarian commitment … it depends on what you mean by ‘self-interest’. If you simply mean that we all always act in accordance with our highest want at any given moment, what Ludwig von Mises would call the ‘rationality axiom’, then yes indeed. But this is not a normative judgement. It’s simply a praxeological truth. But if you mean ‘self-interest’ in the sense that we shouldn’t give a care to the sick and suffering, but rather horde what we have for ourselves, then by no means. Nothing in the libertarian position demands such a commitment. Libertarianism doesn’t tell anybody how to live, or what to do with the resources at their disposal, so long as it is non-aggressive.

But this example is extremely simplistic. We live in a capitalist society with significant division of labor. We are simply not self sustaining farmers, and we very likely don't want to be. And even if that example were at all applicable to a modern society, it leaves out all the complications. What if, in order to improve my yields, I divert a river that happens to flow across my land. Or use pesticides with significant effects on neighbors? There are all sorts of scenarios where burdens and profits fall apart. And I will repeat that if I act solely according to pragmatic self-interest, I will try to make it so that the burdens of my actions fall on others. — Echarmion

Both my examples were simplistic (both the collective ownership and private ownership one), because they are illustrative of a principle. The main cases I can think of in which what I do with my private property imposes unreasonable costs on others is when I am acting aggressively, invading the property of others in some way. If I pump out dangerous toxins which affect your health or pollute a river which runs outwith the boundaries of my land, then of course I must give compensation. So the non-aggression principle, if employed, covers many such cases. As I said, the fact that private-property owners tend to be the immediate bearers of the costs and benefits of what they do (assuming, of course, that they are not criminal aggressors) is true. It is only a tendency, but it really is a tendency. That establishing private property rights is an effective solution to the tragedy of the commons problem is well known.

While the structure of this argument is logically sound, you haven't provided much of any justification for all the premises on the way. The premises you are setting up are the core points of debate where libertarianism is concerned. — Echarmion

Well, I think I have laid out some plausible reasons for thinking that market failure is a relative rarity in a system of private property, and is implicit in the entire political process (as well as in any collective decision-making process). The force of this observation can easily be underestimated, but I believe that it constitutes a powerful libertarian defence.

Aggressive marketing campaigns would not be considered as 'aggression' in the libertarian system. The reason why libertarians do not simply use the term 'violence' is because libertarianism is not pacifist. Violence is justified, for defensive purposes. 'Aggression' is that term which is used to designate the initiatory use of violence.

Is a system of private ownership and non-aggression flawed? Yes, but not uniquely so. Whatever problems a libertarian world might face will also plague the non-libertarian alternative — Virgo Avalytikh

Your trimmed statement, as I quoted it, summarizes the human situation. The human species has difficulty living together when many share close quarters. The reason our distant ancestors (Homo sapiens, just like us) were able to live on the land for many millennia is that they were generally few and far enough between, and they maintained a very modest level of material aspiration. Hunter/Gatherers lived in some sort of equilibrium with the natural world. Were they saints? Of course not -- they probably killed each other quite a bit more frequently than we do because there were no over-arching state bodies to mediate.

Indeed, it was the creation of the state that seems to have been the critical cultural development that reduced violence among people (US -- not Homo Erectus et al. See The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker.

You probably have Idealist tendencies. That's not a criticism. The problem with us idealists--I'm counting myself in this group--is that we tend to privilege theory over the actual practice of the people. Thinking idealistically isn't a fatal flaw, as long as we touch base with reality regularly.

What you’ll observe elementally is a return to the distant past. They drive horses and buggies, wear modest attire and live in farms or plain houses. They like to live off the land. They are a type of cloistered sect (with exceptions), as indifferent to modernity, technology and social media as is possible. — Reshuffle

I admire the Amish lifestyle, though I'd probably choke on their theology. But Lord have mercy, they are not hearkening back to a long distant past. My father grew up with horses and buggies among ordinary Iowa farmers, and he died only 13 years ago (granted, he was pretty old when he died). They do live off the land, (they're farmers), they resist modernity, technology, up to a point, and social media probably entirely. But, you know, they consume modern health care services, and they finance health care as a community responsibility. They like to travel--by train, since that fits into their idea of acceptable technology, to their extended connections among the Amish who have spread out across the northern Middle America States. I've chatted with a number of Amish on the train over the years, and they're pretty down to earth people. It's not like talking to someone who just crawled out from under a rock.

I cannot speak to the historical particulars of land-ownership in Britain (and don't wish to). Needless to say, private ownership can be legitimate, or not (a thief who steals my bag is a 'private property owner'). Libertarians are not committed to approving of any and all private-property claims. Was the enclosure of English agricultural land illegitimate and aggressive? Quite possibly. If we are talking about the unilateral seizure of land from its estwhile owners, then it is criminal.

Moreover, libertarianism does not require us to oppose any form of collective or cooperative ownership. If you and a syndicalist commune can make a good go of it, then I have nothing against you. Though, I would say that we need to be clear about exactly what 'collective ownership' or 'public property' mean. In practice, these terms are not distinguished sharply enough from private property. If private property is essentially 'exclusionary' property, then, in order to distinguish public property from it in a meaningful way, it must be global. Many left-libertarians recognise the logic of this (they get it from Rousseau). Either you are anti-exclusion, or not. If you are, then ultimately everybody really has to own everything. So a small syndicalist commune with a field to call its own doesn't satisfy 'public ownership' quite crisply enough for me.

It's interesting: I have no idea whether your historical claim about the State being a critical development in wrenching us up out of a state of nature is true. But I do know that Chomsky would take serious issue with it. I believe he locked horns with Pinker on just this issue.

While I am a (non-pejorative) idealist, I certainly don't want to allow that the State is some sort of pragmatic concession, because this is the 'real world' that we live in. Statism does not work. It makes the world an immeasurably worse place. I believe this for reasons both pragmatic and principled.

I have been following the progression of this thread, and I do find it interesting. I’m eager to see where it goes!

I was wondering if you could explain in your own words how and why a State wouldn’t be formed to protect property rights and to set up markets. Is there still international trade under this system?

It's interesting: I have no idea whether your historical claim about the State being a critical development in wrenching us up out of a state of nature is true. But I do know that Chomsky would take serious issue with it. I believe he locked horns with Pinker on just this issue. — Virgo Avalytikh

Pinker's claim is certainly debatable. He based it not on crime stats, but on archeological evidence of the number of found skulls that showed signs of a violent death (crushed skull bones, for instance) and the number of found skulls that were intact. Pinker's contemporaneous evidence indicates that where the state is weakest, and where the citizens disrespect the state, pursue justice themselves, and subscribe to an 'honor system' the rate of violence is highest. One of the places where these conditions apply is the American South. Violent death at the hands of one's fellow citizens is much, much higher there than in places like New England or the Upper Midwest. In New England and the Upper Midwest citizens tend to have a strong civil culture which respects civil institutions, the states are well funded to carry out their functions, DIY justice is anathema, and the prickly personal honor system is mostly absent.

Some how one has to account for one area of the country having one of the highest rates of violence, and another area -- with a different cultural heritage -- having a very low rate, about the same as Scandinavia.

I would submit that pro-state New England or the upper Midwest is a better place for libertarian politics to develop than the much more anti-state south would be, because the latter are just "crazier" than the former. Crazy libertarians will just kill each other off before the year is out.

I think the "non-aggression principle" has been shown to be deeply incompatible with the right to private property.

“I admire the Amish lifestyle, though I'd probably choke on their theology. But Lord have mercy, they are not hearkening back to a long distant past. My father grew up with horses and buggies among ordinary Iowa farmers, and he died only 13 years ago (granted, he was pretty old when he died). They do live off the land, (they're farmers), they resist modernity, technology, up to a point, and social media probably entirely. But, you know, they consume modern health care services, and they finance health care as a community responsibility. They like to travel--by train, since that fits into their idea of acceptable technology, to their extended connections among the Amish who have spread out across the northern Middle America States. I've chatted with a number of Amish on the train over the years, and they're pretty down to earth people. It's not like talking to someone who just crawled out from under a rock.”
-Bitter Crank

Decent portrayal. I’m happy to stipulate that the “distant” past is stretching it. I didn’t mean to imply that the Amish (et al) are bedfellows with Cro-magnons; rather, just to say they seriously defer to non-modern approaches and applications in their routine affairs.

Yes, their religiosity is as perplexing as it is suffocating; it wouldn’t be so bad were it intellectually, independently, acquired. I might even accept revelation, some spiritual epiphany-speak if you will, but it’s just that their religiosity, like their education in general, appears Pavlovian. It smells and seems cultish. Their script precedes them.

The good news is, they’re harmless. They ain’t the jihadists in search of a Caliphate. They just want to ride horses and buggies, rest quietly in yesterday’s design, and, perhaps, pray silently that the 21st c. scoundrels amongst them keep the state in working order for them to enjoy their tidy Shangri-la.

More positively, the Amish are preserving a "green" way of life we might need to emulate, one of these days. They don't consume excessively; the successfully use pre-chemical industry methods of agriculture; they live fairly well without electricity.

The way the Amish live is, after all, the way pretty much everybody lived 170 years ago, before electricity, before telephones, before autos, airplanes, and all that. We won't live like we do now, if we emulate the Amish; I like telephones, electricity, television, computers, cars--all that stuff. It's just that once we exhaust oil, and once we really cut back on CO2 emissions (along with methane and other greenhouse gases) we won't have much of a choice. It will be back to reading books, playing board games, riding a horse if you are rich enough to afford one (they were expensive), working much harder than we do now just to live, never mind employment.

Am I looking forward to doing laundry by hand? Absolutely Not! Am I looking forward to tending a big garden? Not at my age, I'm not. Am I looking forward to heating with wood, if I had to? No indeed--more hard work. Am I looking forward to hauling water, using an outhouse, etc? I have, I could. Not looking forward to it.

Can we feed 340 million Americans with horsepower? No. 8 billion on earth? Clearly not. What will happen to all these people we can't feed? Let's talk about something else.

Let's talk about something else. — Bitter Crank

Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano, who was better? Never mind. That could get racial.

One may conclude, having levelled one such objection, that the legitimacy or at least the necessity of the State, or of collective ownership, is thereby vindicated. — Virgo Avalytikh

perhaps there really are problems which would plague a system of private ownership and non-aggression, and that it would be genuinely extremely difficult to deal with the problem from within that system. — Virgo Avalytikh

Constraining the fundamentally violent nature of life, is actually a feat in civilization.

Resource gathering is territorialist. This is "my plot of land", and "let's violently kick every competitor out of the picture", is one legitimate reason for the fundamentally violent situation in nature. "Let's tear all other males to pieces, if need be, and then coerce the females", is another fundamentally violent trait in nature.

Competition is an interaction between organisms or species in which both the organisms or species are harmed. Limited supply of at least one resource (such as food, water, and territory) used by both can be a factor. According to the competitive exclusion principle, species less suited to compete for resources should either adapt or die out, although competitive exclusion is rarely found in natural ecosystems.

Aggression is overt or covert, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual. It may occur either reactively or without provocation. Aggression between conspecifics in a group typically involves access to resources and breeding opportunities. One of its most common functions is to establish a dominance hierarchy. This occurs in many species by aggressive encounters between contending males when they are first together in a common environment ... Aggression is, thus, aggravated during times when high population densities generate resource shortages.

Violence and aggression are universal across human societies, and have likely been features of human behavior since prehistory. For men at risk of never finding a mate, the fitness benefit to engaging in aggressive, violent behavior could outweigh the potential costs of fightings, especially if fighting alongside a coalition.

While male-male competitionThe presence winning male suppresses mating behaviours of the losing males because the winning male tends to produce more frequent and enhanced mating calls in this period of time. can occur in the presence or absence of a female, competition occurs more frequently in the presence of a female. Before copulation, intrasexual selection - usually between males - may take the form of male-to-male combat. Finally, sexual conflict is said to occur between breeding partners, sometimes leading to an evolutionary arms race between males and females.

Non-violence and non-aggression is a relatively unstable, artificially constructed situation. It should never be considered "natural".

In the event of societal collapse, of inter-societal conflict, or any breakdown in the painstakingly constructed and enforced "law and order", then for reasons of sheer survival, we must immediately revert to assuming generalized aggression as well as inflicting generalized aggression. A healthy distrust of civilization and its ability to maintain itself, is absolutely necessary.

Therefore, any philosophy that considers non-violence and non-aggression to be "natural" is a dangerous delusion.

I was wondering if you could explain in your own words how and why a State wouldn’t be formed to protect property rights and to set up markets. Is there still international trade under this system? — Noah Te Stroete

The answers to these questions will vary depending on what kind of libertarian you’re talking with. Within the right-libertarian camp, we might distinguish between minimal-State ‘minarchists’, and anarcho-capitalists. Minarchists believe in ‘limited government’ (a phrase so vague that it is hardly helpful at all), usually reserving for the State merely a ‘night-watchman’ role. Anarcho-capitalists are obviously anti-Statists all across the board, and consider the so-called core functions of the State to be such that no one should be doing them (like, say, having the means of waging nuclear war) or such that a private alternative is preferable. So, for the anarcho-capitalist, services like rights-enforcement and dispute-resolution would be provided by competing firms in a free and open market.

Robert Nozick, far and away the most sophisticated minarchist philosopher, argued that a minimal State can be legitimate, and probably would be formed organically and without violating anyone’s rights. He spent the entire first part of his ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia’ providing what is, in effect, a defence of Statism against the anarchist, which I find an interesting structural decision given that his book is a defence of libertarianism against Rawlsian egalitarian liberalism. So if you ask a Nozickian, he would say that we could and probably would have a State to protect private property and enter into relations with other States.

The an-cap would disagree, for reasons both philosophical and pragmatic. If the State violates the non-aggression principle by its very nature (and I believe that it does, contra Nozick), then it is illegitimate no matter what size it is, or what services it provides. More practically, David Friedman captures the point well enough: if we don’t trust the government to produce things like cars or food (and, in case there is any doubt, governments would indeed be totally incompetent at producing such things), why should we think that they have what it takes to produce and enforce a legal system with any competence? What is so special about these services, that they must be provided coercively and monopolistically, rather than consensually and competitively? The an-cap simply says, ‘There is no reason’, and therefore considers the market alternative to be preferable in practice, too. A ‘State’ is essentially just a coercive monopoly which forcibly prevents competition in certain services, like the hypothetical baker I mentioned above.

think the "non-aggression principle" has been shown to be deeply incompatible with the right to private property. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is certainly an interesting take on things. I wonder what you could possibly mean by it.

Political philosophy is not my thing, but I just thought I'd bring that up, because anyone who's seriously researched these two principles, ought to have come across this notion. To declare ownership is an act of aggression. Libertarians cloud this issue, creating the illusion that we naturally own things. In reality we are born without private property. We are born with nothing.

If the State violates the non-aggression principle by its very nature (and I believe that it does, contra Nozick), then it is illegitimate no matter what size it is, or what services it provides. — Virgo Avalytikh

This is exactly the problem. A "right", such as the right to property, is something bestowed on a person from the State. It is a "service" provided by the state. If the State, by its very existence violates the non-aggression principle, and therefore ought to be dissolved because of this, then everything given by the State, including the right to own property will be lost with the dissolution of the State.

You do not seem to understand what a "right" is:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. — Wikipedia

Notice that a right only exists in relation to some sort of convention. It is not a property of a person, but of that convention. Further to this, the right to own property is a right which by its very nature requires enforcement, acts of aggression, because we are born with nothing. Perhaps you might avoid the necessity of force, by rewording the "right", as the right to give property, or sell property, but this implies that someone already owns the property which would be given or sold. Since we are born with nothing, we cannot get into the circle of ownership without acts of aggression.

Governmental structure preferences are just that: preferences.

If you're arguing that some particular governmental structure is going to solve or invite some particular problem that's another issue, but it's also not really decideable, because (a) it's usually purely hypothetical, and (b) even if it weren't, there are way too many variables at play to say that the governmental structure solved or introduced the problem.

I am always apprehensive when one talks about ‘nature’ or ‘the natural’, especially when this is contrasted with ‘civilisation’ or ‘the civilised’. The reason is that it suggests that something other than the course of nature brought us to (relative) civilisation; as though nature was trundling along in its immutable and ponderous fashion, and then some external invader ‘overtook’ nature, subjugated it, overcame it, and gave rise to civilisation. I would argue that, in a sense, smart phones are no less ‘natural’ than grass and trees. Smart phones are composed of materials which, if you go far enough back through their individual histories, are reducible to perfectly ‘natural’ resources. They are built up into something new by human productive ingenuity, but this, too, is a product of ‘nature’. The primitive past is often given this privileged status of being our ‘natural’ state, as though something other than other than nature – nature plus something else – got us to where we are. But this isn’t true. Nature is not always red in tooth and claw. Nature is just as responsible for producing peaceful cooperation as it is for animalistic aggression; just as responsible for smart phones as it is for fire. The forces which conspired to bring us to where we are today (wherever that is) did not come into nature from without.

Once we shake the idea that primitive aggression has some privileged status as our ‘natural state’, I see no reason to think that this is true:

Non-violence and non-aggression is a relatively unstable, artificially constructed situation. It should never be considered "natural". — alcontali

Moreover, I think that your analysis leaves some vital things out. First off, it is in the interest of virtually no individual in particular to exist in a state of nature. Even the ‘alpha’, who is fortunate enough to have those characteristics which make him unusually adapted to survive in a war of all against all, can still be taken out easily enough by a group of two or three who conspire to do so. The incentive to enter into a relationship of peaceful voluntarism with others is perfectly ‘natural’.

The free market – which I understand simply to be the totality or aggregate of voluntary associations – has done more to improve the material condition of humanity than anything else in this world, by an incalculable margin. Peaceful voluntarism generates a ‘discipline of constant dealings’, which gives rise to a stability that violent aggression can never enjoy. Arbitrary force is unstable in the extreme. How can it be otherwise? What, in a war of all against all, can one possibly rely on?

Political philosophy is not my thing, but I just thought I'd bring that up, because anyone who's seriously researched these two principles, ought to have come across this notion. To declare ownership is an act of aggression. Libertarians cloud this issue, creating the illusion that we naturally own things. In reality we are born without private property. We are born with nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are quite mistaken on this. Right-libertarians almost always advocate for a Lockean theory of ownership, which understands all external resources as being originally unowned, and become owned through productive acts of transformation, or ‘homesteading’. This isn’t ‘clouded’; it is treated very systematically in the literature (some of which I posted above).

Moreover, it is simply incoherent to say that declaring an act of ownership is aggression. Certainly, it can be aggression (like in the case of theft), but it is not aggression per se. It is incoherent for the same reason as Proudhon’s dictum, ‘Property is theft’, is incoherent; as Marx himself observed, you have to first have a system of property in place before you can even recognise theft (or any other kind of aggression) for what it is.

Certainly there are those (left-libertarians and other collectivists) who will say that private ownership is aggressive, because all the resources in the world are owned by everyone, but even assuming they are correct (which I don’t), it would not follow that property itself is aggression. According to such people, ‘privation’ is aggression.

This is exactly the problem. A "right", such as the right to property, is something bestowed on a person from the State. It is a "service" provided by the state. If the State, by its very existence violates the non-aggression principle, and therefore ought to be dissolved because of this, then everything given by the State, including the right to own property will be lost with the dissolution of the State. — Metaphysician Undercover

If rights do not exist prior to the State, then my first question would be: Where does the State get its ‘right’ to govern? Either this right comes from the State’s own declarative statement about itself, or else it is a precondition of the State. The former is simply circular: it is no more persuasive to argue for the State’s legitimacy by appealing to what the State declares about itself than when I declare myself to be the supreme ruler of the universe. If the legitimacy of the State is the very thing in dispute, then appealing to the State’s authority to justify its authority is begging the question. And if the State’s right to govern is a precondition of the State, then your assertion is simply false: at least one right can and does exist, prior to and independently of the State.

The third possibility, of course, is that the State really doesn’t have the right to govern.

Notice that a right only exists in relation to some sort of convention. It is not a property of a person, but of that convention. Further to this, the right to own property is a right which by its very nature requires enforcement, acts of aggression, because we are born with nothing. Perhaps you might avoid the necessity of force, by rewording the "right", as the right to give property, or sell property, but this implies that someone already owns the property which would be given or sold. Since we are born with nothing, we cannot get into the circle of ownership without acts of aggression. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, no: ‘aggression’ is used very specifically in the context of libertarianism. It is defined as the initiatory use of force against persons of property. As I explained above, a system of property rights is a precondition of recognising acts of aggression for what they are. I agree that rights do not ‘inhere’ with the material stuff of a person, that they are conventions, and that they require some means of enforcement. But, logically, this does not imply a State. The recognition and enforcement of conventions are both perfectly possible in the absence of a State (indeed, the State exists in violation of the system of rights that we all apply to non-States; that is why they are distinctive as ‘States’).

To declare ownership is an act of aggression. Libertarians cloud this issue, creating the illusion that we naturally own things. In reality we are born without private property. We are born with nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is it aggressive to lock your doors so that you can keep all of your possessions and your home? Do we own our bodies? According to you the State has the power to decide what we can or can't do with our bodies.

Socialists create the illusion of infinite resources that can be shared by all and accessed by all whenever they want. This is a pipe dream. If we were to redistribute all resources and wealth on the planet every person would end up being in poverty. Google the GDP per capita of the world. It's $17,300, and much off that isnt cash, its locked up commodities and property.

There is also the illusion of the level-playing field. In order attain a level-playing field state would have to engage in genetic and social engineering which just erases individuality and diversity.

Some socialists may have good intentions, but their ideas are disastrous. The rest are just authoritarians in a liberal costume.

I am not sure that this really is a libertarian commitment … it depends on what you mean by ‘self-interest’. If you simply mean that we all always act in accordance with our highest want at any given moment, what Ludwig von Mises would call the ‘rationality axiom’, then yes indeed. But this is not a normative judgement. It’s simply a praxeological truth. But if you mean ‘self-interest’ in the sense that we shouldn’t give a care to the sick and suffering, but rather horde what we have for ourselves, then by no means. Nothing in the libertarian position demands such a commitment. Libertarianism doesn’t tell anybody how to live, or what to do with the resources at their disposal, so long as it is non-aggressive. — Virgo Avalytikh

I do mean self interest in the sense of instrumental rationality - doing what seems best to further your own goals. Those goals can be altruistic, of course. The point is that the question that requires an answer is whether relying on self interest in that sense does actually always produce the best result, and how that is supposed to be established.

Both my examples were simplistic (both the collective ownership and private ownership one), because they are illustrative of a principle. The main cases I can think of in which what I do with my private property imposes unreasonable costs on others is when I am acting aggressively, invading the property of others in some way. — Virgo Avalytikh

That seems like circular logic though. If people follow their own interests and respect the principle of non-aggression, they will bear the costs and benefits of their actions. If people do not bear the costs and benefits of their actions then they did not follow the principle of non-aggression. If any detrimental effect an action has on a third party is an "aggression" towards that party, the principle of non-aggression is so general as to be useless.

If I pump out dangerous toxins which affect your health or pollute a river which runs outwith the boundaries of my land, then of course I must give compensation. So the non-aggression principle, if employed, covers many such cases. — Virgo Avalytikh

But who is going to decide when compensation is required and how high it should be? Who is going to enforce the collection of compensation?

As I said, the fact that private-property owners tend to be the immediate bearers of the costs and benefits of what they do (assuming, of course, that they are not criminal aggressors) is true. It is only a tendency, but it really is a tendency. That establishing private property rights is an effective solution to the tragedy of the commons problem is well known. — Virgo Avalytikh

You have said so repeatedly, but so far I don't see any argument for the claim. That private property avoids the tragedy of the commons is not equivalent to your claim.

Well, I think I have laid out some plausible reasons for thinking that market failure is a relative rarity in a system of private property, and is implicit in the entire political process (as well as in any collective decision-making process). The force of this observation can easily be underestimated, but I believe that it constitutes a powerful libertarian defence. — Virgo Avalytikh

If it possible that, being very familiar to the literature on LIbertarianism and obviously at least partially convinced by it, the truth of your claims seems self-evident to you, but not to others?

If we were to redistribute all resources and wealth on the planet every person would end up being in poverty. Google the GDP per capita of the world. It's $17,300, and much off that isnt cash, its locked up commodities and property. — Harry Hindu

This is off-topic, but the GDP is the Gross Domestic Product, not the sum of all resources and "wealth" on the planet.

If you want to quibble, just Google "how much money would everyone in the world have if it was divided equally".

It's been discussed elsewhere on the internet, so you'll find plenty of links. But you won't find much of a difference in the number I provided. Everyone in the world will still end up in poverty.

This discussion of the theoretical of universal collective vs. private ownership is just that, theoretical. Practical implementation is much more complex and messier than the discussion seems to take into account. Neither side is in reality doable, but I still think the discussion is worthwhile to try to solve the systemic problems of the status quo. This is my opinion.

Nature is just as responsible for producing peaceful cooperation as it is for animalistic aggression — Virgo Avalytikh

When you trade, you need to give in return something of sufficient value to the other person. It is often cheaper to attack him and confiscate what you want. In fact, it is even better not to hesitate, because if you don't do it, then someone else will.

That otherwise absolutely sound strategy will not work, however, if some kind of stronger power creates a safe haven around himself that encompasses both of you, and prevents you from implementing the otherwise cost-effective solution of attacking and confiscating.

Trade only makes sense when violent confiscation doesn't.

When that stronger power gets disabled, all odds are off. People immediately start looting before someone else does, and they are right, because in those circumstances you can indeed expect shortages of everything, all over the place. So, if someone who looks weaker, carries food along, beat him up and make it yours, before someone else does.

You also need to be careful if you visibly have anything that someone else could want, because everybody else will want to rip it off before someone else does.

Of course, all of that works even better if you gang together. That allows you to attack and strip clean everybody who doesn't belong to a gang. When those easy targets are exhausted, the next thing to do is to ambush the weaker gangs and duly appropriate their loot too.

The situation will eventually stabilize when the biggest and most violent gang has subjugated all other gangs and appointed their leader to Big Brother of the New Safe Haven. Now that Big Brother is watching you, and prevents you from ambushing, attacking, and violently confiscating stuff from weaker-looking suckers, trade can resume again.

Conclusion. Trade doesn't work without Big Brother watching you.

Now that Big Brother is watching you, and prevents you from ambushing, attacking, and violently confiscating stuff from weaker-looking suckers, trade can resume again. — alcontali

Big Brother watches me specifically so that I don’t put someone in the hospital again but also to ensure my safety that people don’t wrongly accuse me. I’ve learned to love Big Brother because the alternative, a mental institution or jail, would afford significantly less freedom. “Slavery is freedom” is literally true in my case.

This discussion of the theoretical of universal collective vs. private ownership is just that, theoretical. Practical implementation is much more complex and messier than the discussion seems to take into account. Neither side is in reality doable, but I still think the discussion is worthwhile to try to solve the systemic problems of the status quo. This is my opinion. — Noah Te Stroete

It seems obvious to me that I own what I worked to get, where "worked" doesn't entail stealing from others, or oppressing others, rather it entails providing a service or product to the rest of society that you are part of.

A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. Those are the only powers a government should have.

A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu

Is this just an opinion of yours or do you have justification for these assertions?

A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. — Harry Hindu

This seems like it could be justified, possibly, by the meaning of “necessary.”

Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu

This cannot be justified, or I at least don’t see how it could be.

If you want to quibble, just Google "how much money would everyone in the world have if it was divided equally".

It's been discussed elsewhere on the internet, so you'll find plenty of links. But you won't find much of a difference in the number I provided. Everyone in the world will still end up in poverty. — Harry Hindu

The number I found was 34.000. Having 34.000 dollars in assets is not "poverty" according to any definition I am aware of. It's also for every single person, not household assets. For the vast majority of the population, that would be significant wealth.

It seems obvious to me that I own what I worked to get, where "worked" doesn't entail stealing from others, or oppressing others, rather it entails providing a service or product to the rest of society that you are part of. — Harry Hindu

Ownership is a social convention though, so you cannot necessarily enforce your own view on what you own.

The number I found was 34.000. Having 34.000 dollars in assets is not "poverty" according to any definition I am aware of. It's also for every single person, not household assets. For the vast majority of the population, that would be significant wealth. — Echarmion

That would be very good for the millions of people who have negative net wealth.