"If I catch you using that thing, I have the right to respond with violence just as if you were trying to kill me"
That's just ridiculous to me. If I slap you, do you have the right to defend yourself "as if I was trying to kill you"? Of course not. Same goes from defending property. If my family is starving and someone steals the food I've worked for to feed them, then yes, it might actually be a matter of life or death. In other cases, not at all. Appropriate defensive force against an initiator of force (i.e. someone aggressing against you, someone who is being violent) is completely justifiable, when it's an appropriate amount of force. Ideally, we all use non-violent communication and no physical force is ever required.
You can say "property is theft," but until there's an alternative mechanism for determining value within the chaotic system that is human existence, I'll choose market forces over anything I've seen so far because economic freedom correlates with high levels of human well-being. Unless you're advocating we rewind the clock to the days of pre-agricultural society, property and ownership is what gives us modern society. I love open source software, and I do believe someday, maybe, we could have our needs met well enough to not have to put a price tag on everything. However, I think Steemit is an example of where market forces and the "price tag" still have great value compared to not having them. Conversations are much better here. Why is that? Because something that was previously difficult to value is now being valued by a pseudo-market force of a dollar-value vote.
It's a beautiful, wonderful thing.
I'll even upvote you for starting a good discussion, even though I disagree with your conclusion. :)
Thanks for pointing out your non-violent communication post. I look forward to watching the videos.
I will have to respond to your comments in the morning, but I appreciate the responses.
Actually if you initiate aggression by slapping me it may be the end of your life, for if you are willing to violate the non aggression principal in the first place how am I to know where you would stop escalating the violence you initiated?
With reason, logic, and evidence? Humans are emotional beings and they make emotional mistakes. If someone screws up and lets their negative emotions get the best of them, and you'd be willing to end their life because of it, that to me seems like a moral framework so rigid as to be worse than Statism's victimless crimes or some hyper-dogmatic, fundamentalist, violent worldview. Punishment based on harm done to the victim has to be rational. When it's not, we get the State or ISIS.
Worse than stateism victimless crimes? Seriously? Say you initiate aggression and slap me when I have not done anything that constitutes aggression towards you, and I proceed to hand you an ass whooping, how do I know you won't come back with a knife or a gun?
Now I'm not saying that I would always or automatically resort to lethal force. That would only happen in cases where I felt the threat of escalation by the aggressor was a real possibility, but under THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES I maintain that I am within my rights to assure that I am not the victim of further aggressions.
I enjoyed the videos. I like his approach.
I'm not so sure I can get around to answering all of your comments at this point, but I did read them all and you make some good points.
I have a hard time conceiving of a defense of property rights that is appropriate and proportionate. Most of what I've experienced has been agents of the state applying overwhelming force with the backing of a justice system that criminalizes any attempts at fighting back. I've been a part of eviction defense actions, for example, where we sat and/or chained ourselves to a home that was being illegally foreclosed on by the bank... U.S. Marshals showed up with military style weapons. Nobody resisted violently, but that didn't prevent people from being sent to the hospital. One friend of mine was lying in the street unconscious for several minutes before an ambulance showed up. All to protect the property of the bank, who owned it on paper and wouldn't allow the woman who lived in the house the chance to prevent it...
To me, this is blaming Voluntaryists for the State and clouding your reasoning with personal experiences. At the same time, as a business owner with some level of success, I also use my personal experiences to put a lot of trust in the market, private property, and rational economic actors.
Your criticism and concern is a similar to those ancappies have of ancommies, claiming their society without property rights will always lead to conflict and the rise of a State power to appropriate and redistribute wealth in what turns into centralized planning. I personally think both AnCom and AnCap views have merit, but AnCap seems more rational, IMO, with how human beings work to meet their own, wildly diverse ambitions through prices created by a market system in what would otherwise be overly chaotic or too strictly controlled via central planning. How can we know which works best? To me, we can do our best to measure human well-being and go from there. I see AnCaps as being inclusive. They are fine with people doing the AnCom thing. I don't see AnComs as allowing AnCaps the same freedom.
It would be easier to let AnCaps off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of capitalist societies that were not underwritten by state violence.... But you are correct that the forms of the arguments against the opposing sides of this debate often take a similar form.
It would be easier to let AnComs off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of communist societies that were not underwritten by state violence...
As you said, it goes both ways. I'm currently on the team with the lowest democide body count (IMO).
Funny thing is, there are quite a few interesting examples of anarchist communities of various forms (see wikipedia), but Statists argue they don't count because they aren't on a large enough scale. I think the Internet and decentralization has changed the game, however, because for the first time ever, networks can be more efficient than hierarchies. That's an amazing thing! What's even more interesting to note is how the origin of the Internet combines so many different world views. Statists argue government involvement created it. AnComs might site the importance of open-source and free software which runs it all. AnCaps could then point out how the commercialization of the Internet is what actually caused it to grow and solve the last mile problem into people's homes.
Moral of the story: we should probably all be a little less dogmatic as we increase our wisdom and experience. :)
@lukestokes most of the anarchist communities that you mention were closer to what leftist anarchists are advocating than capitalistic systems... Especially considering that AnCaps are a relatively new breed, largely emerging from the privileged classes (who are best positioned to benefit from the existing disparity in wealth/property).