From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 28 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Misuse of terms in natural law When I read the page I read “author X believes natural law would be enforced... author Z believes natural law would be enforced...” there is a difference from positive law and negative law (natural law) while positive law requires rights to be enforced, it is impossible to “enforce” a natural right, natural rights can only be protected or harmed, but never enforced I suggest changing all the occurrences of “author X believes natural law would be enforced by...” to “author X believe natural law would be protected by...” Iron Capitalist (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Iron Capitalist: I tried looking for examples of phrases that say natural law would be enforced but can't find any, could you point at the sentences you have in mind? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] here are the ones I found “Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of a system of private property enforced by private agencies” “In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies” “The latter advocate a night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals from aggression and enforcing private property.[14] “ “Kosanke believes that in the absence of statutory law the non-aggression principle is "naturally" enforced because individuals are automatically held accountable for their actions via tort and contract law.” “The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well as private arbitrations.” Iron Capitalist (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] But this doesn't talk about "natural law", it talks about the system of private property, contract law etc.. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] yes, these systems from the natural law are not enforceable, they are only able to be protected or harmed the notion of “enforcement” would require action from the state to grant a right to someone, natural rights are rights that requires no action from individuals (right to property translates to “right to you not take the action of taking my stuff”, same with slavery “do not take action of forcing me to work”, rape and murder) even though the sections don’t talk about the terms specifically, it is misleading to use them in such way I suggest we change the occurrences of “enforcement” when talking about natural law to “protection” Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Law is something that is enforced, not protected. Likewise, the system of private property is also something that is enforced - private ownership of land isn't anything that's "natural" and is only a relatively recent development that has appeared during the rise of feudalism. I agree that for this to work you need a state or a quasi-state (e.g. a private security force) to "grant" ownership to someone, and that's why we talk about enforcement rather than protection. The system of private property only existed for a few hundred years, while humans had their lives, bodies and personal possessions for as long as we remember. Slavery may have seemed "natural" at the time to people, just like "owning" a piece of land or a building that you don't live or work in may seem "natural" to some people today. BeŻet (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @BeŻet:, “law is something that is enforced”, that’s the positive law, yes, negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act, that’s why they are called “negative” rights take property like the example you used, we say “right to property”, but in fact the proper structure of the natural right is “right to not be robbed”, so this right requires you and me to “not take action” to rob someone and when we take that action, someone can take forceful action against the robbery to prevent it from happening, so protecting the owner of that property another way to think about it is this: will you have that right even is humanity stood still? if humanity stands still, no one is robbing you, so right to property (same with no one is raping you, no one is murdering you, no one is enslaving you) actual positive rights, like “right to healthcare”, do need to be enforced like you pointed out if we try to input “right to healthcare” in the stand still logic, we would have this: will you have healthcare if humanity stands still? if humanity stands still, means no physician is providing you with healthcare, and if no one is provinding you healthcare, the state must force someone to provide healthcare, hence the en-force-ment of the positive law also, natural rights do not come from what “seems natural”, they come from reasoning and are above states, they are permanent and cannot be changed a state cannot write in a paper that it has the right to kill millions of people because of their race without infringing the natural law Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] ""negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act"" - if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership". If you tell someone that they can't collect rainwater, because rain "belongs" to you: again, you are enforcing things, even though you are "requiring others to not act". It seems strange to think of something as "natural" if it requires large scale violence to "protect" - an individual can, on their own, protect their life, the dwelling they live in, the clothes they wear, the tools they use, a small plot of land they cultivate etc.. This more or less can seem "natural", or at least reasonable. But when you're talking about massive swathes of land "belonging" to an individual, or large buildings like factories, or simply any place they don't live or work at, it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable". Ownership only makes sense if it is self-evident. Moreover, I think you're confusing "negative laws" with "negative rights" (the former is not a real term). In terms of "having rights if humanity stood still", it's not very clear what you mean by that. If someone's a prisoner, or a slave, and humanity "stood still", surely they would remain a prisoner or slave? If not, why would land remain privately owned then? Finally, please remember that the concept of natural law is just that, a concept that some, but not all, believe in, and even fewer people include private property within them. Therefore, the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and not that of an anarchocapitalist. Anyway, this is turning into a forum discussion, so we should focus more on the article itself. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @BeŻet: sorry for taking a while to answer “ if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership".” That’s not how it works, but even if we assume it is, if humanity stands still, no one is trespassing the property, that’s why right to property is a natural right ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it, hence why you cannot claim that “someone cannot collect rain water” also, we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both “ it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable".” well, “natural” in “natural rights” doesn’t come from “what makes sense”, it comes from the notion that humans did not intervene for it to happen, not “what makes sense “negative law is not a real term” you are 100% correct, I only use the term to stress the contrast natural law has to the positive law (since the opposite of positive would be, well, negative) “surely they would remain a prisoner or slave?” if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action) “natural law is just a concept” yes, and that’s included in the concept, they are rights that all humans and cannot be revoked even if a bunch of politicians wrote on a paper that they revoked it “the article should be neutral, not from ancap point of view” yes, that’s a neutral point of view because of what natural rights are, rights that cannot be enforced, only protected “we need to focus on the article” well yes I agree but we will end up having different understandings of what the content of the page is and what to include or exclude from it like we had o the “why socialism is when gov” section, so I believe a little of theoretical discussion between us would be healthy for the article and for ourselves as well, but just a little, like you said, focusing on the page as a final thought, I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is, not what ancap’s point of view of it is Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] A quick point "we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both" Well, what if I disagree about what's self-defense? Defending / protecting my property isn't violence? Well then what is or isn't violence depends on how property is defined. Speaking practically about the world as it exists, property is a convenient concept that is enforced by other people, the police. Is it still not violence for the police to injure people who are trespassing on my private property? I think that including "defense of property" in the nonviolent umbrella of "self defense" is not neutral, and it's in fact a highly capitalist perspective. Leijurv (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] "ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it" - but who defines how much labor, and what form of it is required? Who decides this, who defines this? Also, Rothbard believes that land would belong to you forever, and that you could "give" it to someone else, so it would suddenly "belong" to someone who didn't mix their labor with it. At that point everything is just based on a claim. "if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action)" - in that case any status quo can be justified. If humanity stood still, if you are in a prison cell, you are still a prisoner because breaking out of the prison cell requires action. If humanity stood still, and a king "owns" a whole kingdom, they keep "owning" the whole kingdom because any negation of the status quo would require action. But now look at this way: if you are renting a house from a landlord and live in it, if humanity stood still, wouldn't the house belong to you because you wouldn't be paying rent and any attempt to evict you would require an action? Likewise if you have bunch of workers working at a factory and humanity stood still, wouldn't the factory belong to the workers working there, because any attempt to force them out would require an action? "I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is" - but most people don't believe natural law exists at all, or that private property is part of natural law etc.. It's like saying we should write in every article about animals that they were "created to do" something, not "evolved to do" something, because of the belief that God created all animals. Natural law isn't a universally accepted concept, just as the belief that God created the universe and everything living in it. As mentioned by Leijurv, describing enforcing land ownership and territorial claims as "self-defence" is a very right-libertarian way of phrasing things. BeŻet (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]