Some ancaps are insane absolutists. Dogmatic and irrational just to be consistent. Claiming things like if a near death person drinks from a private well in the desert, the land owner can shoot him without moral qualms.

For me logical non-agression supersedes property rights.

But I also thing taking non aggression to an extreme is unfavorable. I'll stop there because metadata

And I would agree that linking property to use is important but that's a very subjective kind of idea so we have to be careful. What is good use?

I'd disagree with saying that an ideal of absolute self ownership is dogmatic. I don't see any negotiation there. We either own ourselves, or we don't.

Check out
anselme bellegarrigue

His manifesto is free online "anarchy is order"

- Julia Tourianski

> On Aug 28, 2014, at 10:29 PM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>
> I was reading Wikipedia and normally I'm not into this ideology stuff
> but I found some really interesting stuff. I was trying to understand
> what anarcho-communism is about and whether it was voluntary. For me it
> seems like you have some central assemblies where resources from
> individuals flow to be redistributed via democratic decision making
> according to the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability,
> to each according to his need".
>
> As someone who values individuals, and wants to see a society based on
> merit where leaders can strike it out, I don't like democracy and I
> don't like collective decision making as always the consensus of the
> majority is to oppose progress and normalise anything different.
>
> The idea of communist worker councils oppressing the rich classes,
> taking the power to guide the economy is very much rooted in the times
> of industrialisation where a poor rural Russia needed to industrialise.
>
> "While Kollontai was initially drawn to the populist ideas of
> a restructuring of society based upon the peasant commune,
> effective advocates of such theories in the last decade of the
> 19th century were few.[11] Marxism, with its emphasis on the
> enlightenment of factory workers, the revolutionary seizure of
> power, and the construction of modern industrial society, held
> sway with Kollontai as with so many of her peers of Russia's
> radical intelligentsia."
>
> So this is where it gets interesting. I'm reading about market
> anarchism, which I know is something people have called me as well as
> being labelled voluntarist. I like the Proudhon and Lysander Spooner too.
>
> There's a section called "Left-wing market anarchism":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Left-wing_market_anarchism
> and the first paragraph in, is the stuff I already know but the rest is
> veeeerry interesting. I'm surprised at how much the ideas expressed
> there are the same as my own. Like I go on, and there's many things I
> thought were unique to my political beliefs.
>
>> proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal
>> ideas of self-ownership and free markets
> yep already knew this, I like self-ownership a lot.
>
>> taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support strongly
>> anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, ...
> yep this is what I thought of market anarchism.
>
>> pro-labor positions in economics
> that's new to me. My economics do take a view with empowering the
> disempowered in an open economy so that self-liberation and
> self-emancipation are available to all.
>
>> anti-imperialism in foreign policy;
> no borders right
>
>> This strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the
>> mutualist economics conceptualized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
>> American individualist anarchism, or in a left-wing interpretation
>> or extension of the thought of Murray Rothbard.
> I pretty much agree with all those ideas.
>
>> Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result
>> from the use of force, and especially state power, to steal and
>> engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges
> This is my main argument for why we need markets. The system is rigged
> through printing money, force and a rigged democracy.
>
>> They judge that, in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges
>> secured by the state will be absent, and injustices perpetrated
>> or tolerated by the state can be rectified. Thus, they conclude
>> that, with state interference eliminated, it will be possible to
>> achieve "socialist ends by market means."
> Wow, I definitely want to achieve socialist ends by market means. If we
> can form cooperatives that allow people to live cheaply and freely, to
> pool money for things like costly cancer treatment or insurance, then we
> have no need for intermediaries and we can make an economy that works
> for ourselves. This is why the market is so powerful because it gives
> you the ability to wield it for whatever objectives, and then the
> effectiveness (in a "free open" market which values merit) is tested.
> It's by no means perfect, but it's a much more fun way to live, and
> that's the only way to unlock liberty.
>
>> Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses
> yes, become the boss. Take back your work.
>> support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property
> let me get back to u on this one
>> prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory
>> restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised.
> they split up the electromagnetic spectrum and sell it to corporations.
> Part of that spectrum (in the middle) is visible light. Can you imagine
> selling the license for emitting a shade of red? So ridiculous, and
> that's why we have a crap monopolised telecom infrastructure- they
> control the airwaves.
>> They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by
>> highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood
>> of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion
> I've been reading Assange's Google book, page 25 paragraphs 2-3 are a
> good read for a greater enunciation of this.
>> doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative"
>> in the absence of government manipulation.
> I don't want a world of privatised slaves. I want everyone to be an
> entrepreneur and to own their work.
>> Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics
> I don't vote. It's a waste of time and a silly game.
>> They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of
>> working around the state.
> So much this!! This is definitely my strategy.
>> that market anarchists can and should call themselves "socialists."
> I would call myself socialist.
>
> Now about anarcho-capitalism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> I get many of the ideas, and I realise there are many variants which I
> strongly associate with many of the traits. Also I feel a commonality
> with many people who associate as anarcho-capitalist through their values.
> However I don't understand a few things. Is this philosophy dealing in
> absolutes? Is it always wrong to steal someone's property like a bag of
> rice when you're starving? Is it more wrong to steal from a big
> supermarket than an individual? Is it right to steal from the
> government? How about a morally reprehensible individual? Or a
> corporation? Or is the private property thing more of a steering
> guideline- that we should seek to protect private property.
>
> How is private property linked to use? For instance, many amazing or
> valuable places on earth or certain resources have been taken by power
> groups for nefarious ends. For instance DeBeers uses its influence to
> further encroach its monopoly and rig the market to drive out
> competitors. On an earth that had no borders or lines, who is to say
> this millionaire guy has the right to buy an entire river or beach for
> his own private mention, and then use force to prevent my use of that
> natural unused geography. Is that really ethical?
>
> I think Bitcoin is interesting as many of the things that ancaps are
> striving for can now be done through blockchain & crypto technologies
> without the need for private courts, law enforcement and security
> services. I'm strongly of the view that the more we can live without
> needing police and judges in a society, the better we will be.
>
> How do anarcho capitalists view things like copying bytes of a movie or
> jumping train barriers which do not deprive people of the movie or a
> train ride?
> I think maybe the situation in the relatively young US is different to
> the older aristocratic Europe. Here we have the situation like the Duke
> of Westminster who owns the best land and properties around England and
> London, and is the 2nd richest man in the UK. He's a big supporter of
> royalty and the military.
> He is basically rich from being a rentier.
> Would we be wrong for violating his property? How about if we made good
> use of his buildings putting them to productive use?
>
> My questions fall into:
> * Does anarcho-capitalism deal with moral absolutes?
> * How widely can you interpret aggression against property?
> * When is it ethical to violate private property?
> * Who enforces all of this? Is it private militaries and mafias?
> * How does geography play in this? Not all land is equal, and capture of
> land can be a self fulfilling advantage, especially with natural
> resources like water or energy.
> * Why is there such a huge emphasis on private organisations, and no
> discussion about cooperatives or mutualism (normally a cornerstone of
> anarchism)?
> * What is the discussion around our individual action? In terms of what
> values we want to promote, and how that informs our strategy.
> * What if the voluntary market disagrees with defence of private
> property? Which takes precedence?
>
>> Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just,
>> and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property
>> is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original
>> appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
>
> This is indeed correct.
>
>> The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership,
>> which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.
>
> Is this antithetical to the concept of anarchism?
>
> From 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia article on Anarchism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>> As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many
>> currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed
>> body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead
>> fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.
>
> I feel like having an axiomatic and universal basis for your philosophy
> is a dogmatic way of thinking which leads to fixed doctrine.
>
>> This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by
>> a person implies his right to use and transform these places and
>> goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not
>> change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and
>> goods originally **appropriated** by another person.
>
> goes on further:
>
>> According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor,
>> therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely
>> claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by using land
>> ...
>> Rothbard argues that the resource need not continue to be used in
>> order for it to be the person's property
>> ...
>> "His labor has been irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land
>> is therefore his or his assigns' in perpetuity."
>
>> He believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work
>> on under the "homestead principle"
>> He proposes that businesses who receive at least 50% of their
>> funding from the state be confiscated by the workers.
>
> Does that mean we should re-appropriate businesses to varying degrees
> based on how much they benefit from the state?
>
>> Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail
>> over wage labor.
>
> This is what I strive for generally, but with a lot of this stuff
> (especially around contracts), it's cool but seems a bit wishful
> thinking in places that someone people will organise this way because of
> these rational principles... when for me I kind of have some ethic I
> want to push, some strategy for working towards that but no really
> strong vision of "how it must be". I try to develop my sense of ethics,
> and actually I feel stealing from a supermarket is more ethical than
> buying from it... especially if we oppose big nation-states with the
> recognition that the deep state doesn't start and end with the public
> institutions, but its echelons reach deep with many different consenting
> players (some more than others including ourselves).
>
> I'm curious to see how people are thinking about these sorts of ideas,
> and feeling an affinity to anarcho-capitalism. I'm not interested in
> what the theory says, but what you feel is right.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem