> por que quando os primeiros colonos chegavam em algum lugar técnicamente não existia estado apenas colonos no local [...] Então técnicamente era sim uma terra sei lei até um certo período da história
E vc presume que só pq n tem estado n tem lei? Não é uma opinião minha, é um fato
Lê esse livro aq sobre o assunto
> I also don't recognize the authority of the contract that I signed by the owner of the property. > > now what?
Now no one will enter into a contract with you. You'll be ostracized to varying degrees. You'll be living in a van down by the river.
There are examples of anarchist societies in Iceland and Ireland (~1,000 year).
A more recent example is the US west frontier in the 1800s.
[The Not So Wild, Wild West]9https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543)
Additionally, if you continue to treat others in that way you'll eventually do so to someone who will accept the cost to their community reputation and they'll use violence against you.
Not too likely. This well-researched book addresses your question in detail:
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
If you don't want to drop the coin for it at least read the description to be exposed to a different perspective than is often parroted in mainstream culture (as visible on this thread).
Also, you can find reviews of the book and other content by the authors on the subject via your favorite search engine.
So I recently read this book https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
Which provides a pretty good case study of anarchism in practice. People moved out west in the United States before governments and despite Hollywood portrayals of the West as a lawless place, people were able to create a number of informal institutions that keep the peace and allowed people to thrive and flourish.
> property as a de iure institution requires the prior existence of a State
There's a logical contradiction there. In order for the state to receive any funding (to perform it's actions at a state) it must confiscate people's production. But before people can produce there must first be private property and trade. Thus private property must precede the creation of the state.
Secondly there is lots of evidence of private property without the state. I just finished reading The Not So Wild Wild West which meticulously documents how settlers, who moved West long before governments, defined, protected, and enforced their property rights without the help of the state.
This is the review that I wrote:
> Certainly among the political mainstream but even among certain groups of libertarians there is a belief that government is necessary to define and enforce property rights. It is thought that property rights must be imposed by an outside force and cannot evolve endogenously. The Not So Wild, Wild West demonstrates conclusively time and again that in areas of the Western Frontier that were settled before governments arrived property rights did evolve naturally with the help of institutional entrepreneurs who defined and protected such rights.
> Not only did a vibrant, peaceful, and cooperative social order develop absent formal government, but in almost all cases where the government attempted to impose order, such as with the Homestead Act, it disrupted the natural social order and left settlers worse off than if it had simply done nothing.
> The Western Frontier offers up a case study in practical anarchism and Anderson and Hill have done an excellent job of documenting the achievements of institutional entrepreneurs and debunking the Hollywood caricature of the West as a wild, lawless place.
You can not look at things like that in a vacume. The rules of the game very much depend on local situation. If you want to see how this can work, the american west has many good examples. The devopment of mining right for example were very complicated and specific to that situation. The cattle farmers handle there property rights in a diffrent way.
There is not one way of doing everything, the hole point of anarcho capitalism is that you allow a broad range of possible solution and people wo can come up with workable solutions.
Check out the book: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/ref=sr_1_1)
Yes, I think most libertarians and AnCaps are people who would never consider initiating violence against others, so we naturally resent having violence initiated against us by a monopoly who steals 40% of our money (total cost of government vs. GDP). We police ourselves, and support free trade with other humans in other geographic areas, which naturally prevents wars and minimizes the need for costly militaries and police, while letting each individual pay for as much defense weaponry as they want. However, the wild wild west was really the Not so Wild West
>I was gonna rebut.
No you weren't lmao. You were going to cope and seethe over the fact you cannot rebut and then post like 3 sentences of "NO U!!!". It's literally all you can do at this point and you have to do SOMETHING to save face because losing a debate against a Libertarian terrifies you to no end. You're too dishonest to have an actual debate.
Imagine being so butthurt you reply 5 fucking times saying you aren't going to reply. L M A O
>Not even making strong arguments.
Okay then, CERTAINLY you would be able to refute them, right? You're not going to spend a week asspained, replying to someone who "isn't worth your time", getting btfo with every post, right? Oh wait lol, that's all you've been doing and you will do it again, lets watch.
>So not interested. Not going to engage
OH NO NO NO NO NO LOOK AT THIS DUDE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>"REEEE! Authoritarianism!"
Authoritarians like yourself get really pissy when people call them out on it. You people defend most of the tankie regimes anyway(and are all friends with tankies) and every example of your ideology in history was an actual authoritarian statist shithole. You even admit you would use violence against those engaged in voluntary capitalist activity. You're an authoritarian incel, just take the label.
>Municipalist
The fact you think this concept is somehow "anarchist" or "stateless" is beyond hilarious honestly. Central planning doesn't magically become anarchist/stateless when it's decentralized and on a local level. You people don't even know what polycentric law is. You don't even know the history of stateless societies and how extremely market based and anti-democratic everything was. You still think democracy/mob rule isn't authoritarian. Fucking political illiterate.
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Property/dp/0804748543
https://web.archive.org/web/20180215061606/http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm
>You want a 'consensual relationship'? Go start a co-op.
Sure, you're totally allowed to do that in a stateless society and there would probably be more of them in one. The issue is they are much more inefficient than capitalist owned firms thus have to charge higher prices, meaning workers buying from them get fucked over. This is why you don't see them in the economy today. Also there's the fact that workers benefit from the capitalist by because the capitalist pays them money before the sale of the product, shelters the workers from the risk of the firm going under, also the fact the capitalist does the work of underconsuming capital and investing it while the worker is not burdened by doing this.
inb4 mondragon or other co-ops who get massive unfair state benefits over their competitors to survive
Also, one of the main reasons taking over the means of production from the capitalist won't benefit the workers is the fact the capitalist class consumes a very tiny portion of the total consumer goods/services sold because there is so few of them and they only live off a very tiny portion of their wealth(money has an inverse relationship with resources). The workers are already receiving virtually all of the goods and services produced in the economy. Having higher nominal wages without actually increasing production will not magically change this.
You're too fucking stupid to understand how the capitalist benefits the workers because you have a child's understanding of economics built on rage and envy.
https://i.imgur.com/ianbjYF.png
>You just have a fetish for licking your bosses' boots.
You people have a fetish for licking the boot of every socialist dictator and the boots of the collective that rules over you. You people enjoy being enslaved. You'd be totally cool with being locked in a cage and fed rations as long as the people doing it to you call themselves the "working class".
Capitalists benefit me immensely. Leaving someone alone to build wealth for society isn't bootlicking, its benefitting.
Communism is authoritarian, stupid and does not work you teenage pseud. Grow up and read a book.
There have been approximations to AnCapistan though. Such as The American Old West, and Saga period Iceland.
If you are interested in resources I would highly recommend the PERC (Property and Environment Research Center). They try to take these ideas from Coase, Ostrom and others and try to apply them to real live environment situations.
> https://www.perc.org/about-us > here a video with one of the main guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBcpal2le2Y
I would also recommend 'The Wild Wild West' a book about resource management in the West of the US before the government arrived. It is exactly what you are looking for.
> https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
I'm reading 'Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography' right now, that might interest you as well, but its more a overview over here hole research program. A bit more depth would be 'Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School'.
If you are more interested in case studies I would look at the individual papers by her and her students. Many of them are comparison between different resource management systems.
You might be also interested in something like 'The Parable of the Bees: Beyond Proximate Causes in Ecosystem Service Valuation'.
I would invite you to extend your research a bit. Collectively shared resources are only part of broader research on stateless interactions. You can also look at the law, law enforcement, court systems, defence and others.
> I'm interested in reading about how different groups have collectively shared resources without the state or market.
I would suggest to that what free market people talk about when they they say 'market' they include these kinds of common property systems. When they talk about a market solutions that includes thinks of that nature.
> You say in a stateless society people would feel that the imitation of violence is illegitimate
I'm saying that the only entity that most people (and by "people", I mean merely the populous, the vast majority of everyday men and women of society) feel DOES have the legitimate use of initiatory violence is govt. If their society has done away with govt, then I suspect that the vast, VAST majority of people would not suddenly find some OTHER entity to be the sole, legitimate authority of initiatory violence. So in the absence of govt, I believe that they would most likely not believe that any organization would hold such claim.
> by what means would they attempt to stop the violence
Private security exists in numerous places now, even in the presence of absolutely incompetent police - and with a phenomenal record. Detroit has given us some interesting examples of how people do come together and get things done, even in the absence of govt. See a whole series here.
> Are you implying that a stateless society is possible to maintain long-term?
Very possibly. Obviously there are many advocates of some version of "anarchism" - that is a stateless society. And most all of them believe it to be a viable structure for society. There are many different views about what the best way that society should be structured in the absence of govt. Some advocate for a standard capitalist, private-property society. Others advocate for a more communistic structure. Others advocate for a primitive, agrarian society. I personally lean toward an approach called voluntarism (or voluntaryism) that, at its core, makes no real declarations of how society should be structured - some areas may prefer a private property approach, others a more communistic approach, etc. The one thing all the different advocates agree is that the state and its monopoly on the "legitimate" use of initiatory violence, creates more problems than it solves.
There are examples in history of a mostly stateless society - or at the very least, no real centralized state where the only real "govt" was local advisory councils. Medieval Iceland and (to a lesser extent) Ireland both represent fairly stable societies with property disputes and resolution, and various other social "rules", even in the absence of a central "lawmaking" authority. Many pre-colonial African regions appear now to have been quite stable without much of any type of govt institution. More modern examples of stability in the absence of govt include the 'not-so wild, wild, west' (book - reviews) and the Indian city of Gurgaon. Not to mention the growth of various cities like Singapore and Hong Kong where govt was largely inconsequential.
There is reason to believe that there were likely many historical examples of stateless (or near stateless) societies. However, they are often difficult to identify historically. Some of the reasons for this are explained here under "Decentralized or Stateless Political Societies".
I do not think it unreasonable to believe that a society without a state, could be much more stable than the stereotype of a violent, post-apocalyptic type society - especially if established in a generally nonviolent society already.
> Eventually they elect someone to be in charge of the group (republic)
Everything in that story is great, until they endow that "leader" with the monopoly on the use of initiatory violence. Prior to that, it's just people voluntarily coming together to discourage the might-makes-right of the physically powerful.
>Don't know of any specific. They arbitrated disputes in land clubs, Cattlemen's associations, mining camps and wagon trains.
> What leads you to believe that all the police in America use threats against peaceful people?
All vice laws.
>And no, the people who risk their lives every single day
Convenience store workers?
>so you can live in peace are not bad as a whole.
Law enforcement employees have threatened violence and initiated violence against me many times in my life. Never in response to me harming or threatening to harm others. That's not peace.
Also, every time I've had to defend myself from violence or threats I've never had an LEE defend me.
>Without police we would live in total chaos
Do a book!
>or there would be private security everywhere for those who can afford it.
There are more private security employees than state law enforcement employees. Private security actually secures people and property.
>Be a little fucking appreciative
No.
>and that doesn’t mean you can’t condemn abuses of power or unnecessary violence when it occurs, as happened with the George Floyd incident.
The LEE behavior in that situations was SOP. How many times have you had LEEs put their hands on you?
>But yeah why don’t you tell all the cops in your town to take the week off
I would be great.
>see how long you maintain any of your possessions
I'm armed and have great neighbors, there would be no problems.
> See the yipping and barking's annoying and even my responses are having you try to melt my brain with statements so stupid they almost damage my psychic.
Wow, all I can hear is "I'm coping hard". :)
> well first i know what authoritarian means
It means coercion, it means the initiation of force. It's not "those people are doing something icky I don't like so it must be stopped".
> and it is not when there are laws
I never implied this either. Anarcho-capitalism has plenty of laws, laws that protect individual rights to life and property. This is done through polycentric law. It just doesn't have a state, which is a monopoly on law.
> so you actually have to do the leg work to prove that not letting workplaces being dictatorial
Sooo it's dictatorial yet you agreed to do it and can leave at any time? LOL
This is the same argument as voluntary BDSM sex acts must be violently stopped because one person acts dictatorial.
> less authoritarian than workplace democracy.
If you want to work for a shitty inefficient co-op and get less pay and take on a lot more risk, you can totally save up capital with your friends and do this. The reason people don't is they would rather collect a paycheck right away instead of waiting potentially years for profit. People prefer a steady pay instead of having gaps in their pay because the company had a bad quarter or two. People prefer not having to give a shit about the health of the firm because their money is not on the line. Not to mention the fact worker co-ops are inherently less efficient in the market, thus get outcompeted by capitalist firms.
The main argument is the initiation of force. Using violence against people who engage in voluntary wage labor is authoritarian, sorry.
>Mises bad
It's literally just a well written summery of a book on the american midwest in the 1800s. This book is well sourced and explains how they were essentially anarcho-capitalist. It's funny how when actual statelessness forms without any underlying ideology, it becomes MORE capitalist, not less.
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Property/dp/0804748543
> child labor was cool
LOL the child labor argument. God damn I thought we already demolished you cunts on this a million times, but here we go again.
Child labor was a fact of reality for all human history until the industrial revolution created so much production and wealth that it was not needed for the first time in history. Parents actually had enough resources to where their children could stay home instead of working just to survive. This happened long before the state passed child labor laws.
Child labor laws when passed in third world countries just cause children to starve or go into prostitution, but you would love that, you coomer.
> people who think children shouldn't be in the mines
It's like you think we want to see kids working. We don't, that's why we support free markets.
I took APUSH and did well. It's come and go. If you have a good teacher and a good textbook, it can be a great course. Unfortunately, that almost always does not happen (IMO High school history departments are terrible and completely watered down).
Personally, my APUSH experience consisted of A LOT of bad economics. I mean crazy things like free trade leading to the recession of 1819, child labor laws ending child labor, unions solely reducing work weeks, a free banking era that glossed over state charters, the evil nature of robber barrons and union-crushers, and the fiscal conservativsm of Hoover (hint: He started the stimulus, used the RFC to give loans to farmers and businesses, started the Hoover Dam, and had regulations like the glass steagal act passed under his term). There was essentially no mention of monetary policy, what I perceive as one of the biggest drivers of financial and economy history in general(See: A Monetary History of the United States).
I don't remember, but sometimes people see the wild west as wild. That's just not true.
Your question, taken on its own, is somewhat problematic. For one, the movement being a global reaction to increased government, would most certainly point towards past incidences. Where you want to make the cutoff point is up to you, but there have been many instances of governments that employed relative free-market policies like the U.S., nordic countries, like Sweden which went from one of the poorest to one of the richest in Europe due to its free market reforms and before it instituted the heavy social state post 50s, Britain during the Victorian Era, Hong Kong(which outpaced Britain in gdp growth after it instituted its policies, although still has questionable income inequality partially due to the fact that all land is rented out by the government to property owners), Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand(both had a period of economic liberalism in the 80s-90s), Belgium, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Two no government as we know may be libertarian given their constant right-violations(and in my opinion no government can be).
Some other, less often mentioned examples include: Medieval Iceland, colonial america, the wild west, the UK[1, 2], and Somalia.
On its own, I could cite any number of reasons why a specific government program would be better off in private hands. On the whole, in a world run by governments, general examples are much harder to come by.
Maybe Im not talking clearly.
> they attacked native american groups who also laid claim to the land
Its the argument of marxist that property needs to be state reenforced all the time other wise it can not exist.
So even if I would accept your argument, it is totally besides thepoint of the argument, if the goverment once did something to kill everbody, say drop a huge bomb. Marxist would then say that people who went to live there would not have property rights, but they had.
> were perfectly willing to let you get away with shooting someone who you thought was "trespassing".
Are you guys having a problem understanding anarchy? They cant 'let you get away with something' because they do not have any autherity. There was simply no institution called goverment.
Are you making the point that guns where used to enforce property rights? Well yeah of course they where.
I was not arguing that property rights where enforced with any kind of coercion, I was pointing out that they existed. Witch they clearly did.
The way up and downvoting is done here just shows that you vote based on opinion and not argument. Manzikert did not argue a single point valid to the argument.
Edit: If you want extra infrmation and not just argue 'its impossilbe' over and over again, condider reading: 'The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier' (http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/)