El foro de filosofía política "Antidemocracia" es un foro para antidemócratas, para quienes rechazan el detestable régimen político que es la democracia y proponen alternativas.
Se llama "democracia" al régimen político en el que las decisiones políticas se toman por mayoría de votos. Aquí somos antidemócratas, sencillamente, porque estimamos absurdo y perjudicial ese procedimiento político, sin por eso convertirnos en unos terroristas o unos tiranos. Hay terroristas y tiranos demócratas, como también los hay antidemócratas.
Dirección de entrada: http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/antidemocracia/

talk lots of theory while the world and the poor of the world are exploited and raped

vow democracy

I hope that even if you never give up your safety net (the state), that you will continue to consider the ethical implications of actions and evaluate them based on something more than just majority rule. And, maybe, just maybe, you will question many of the assumptions that you have about what can, and what cannot exist without a government. And, of course, I am confident that we will both continue to read more and think more about liberty and how we can live more peacefully together. oooh, sorry I didn't mean to sound so touchy feely.

I just wanted to say I have enjoyed this conversation, and found it very interesting. I'm going to be in basic training (USCG) for the next two months, so I won't be able to participate any further.

I wish you the best of luck in dismantling the US government and rebuilding society as a utopia.

In your version of consequences, the conflict still comes down to who is more powerful, not who is right.

Certainly you are free to try to defend yourself. And your friends or family may decide to incur risk by helping you. But your attacker may have friends or family too. You can try to hire security or mercenaries, but if the criminal just stole your property, they can use your own wealth to hire the mercenary security guards against you instead.

In a power vacuum, mafia and war lords can take what they like. This isn't just theory – it actually happens.

1) There is another problem with using a single simplistic principal to judge all actions:

It is possibly for an action to be harmful without directly involving violence or property crime against an individual.

As a free adult, I can drink if I choose. I can also drive a car in public spaces. Driving a car drunk is not an act of aggression toward any particular individual, does not necessarily harm anyone, yet does significantly increase the risk of an innocent person being harmed due to my actions. Same goes for running red lights (assuming they even exist in your world) because I am running late and I feel "pretty sure" no one is coming. Or for maintaining car insurance, since I can not afford to pay your medical bills in an accident.

In any of this cases my actions can harm you without my having been aggressive – it can be a total accident. Often times car accidents happen in which there is no particular gross negligence involved.

Another action I can take which is harmful without being aggressive would be to pollute the air or water or soil on my own land, which in turn travels on its own to adjacent land. In the case of driving a car, no one car can be said to impact any specific victim, yet the sum total of many drivers traveling with cars that would not pass a smog check causes significant health effects for everyone who lives in the area, even those who don't drive. You have a victim without any one perpetrator.

In any of these cases, the best case scenario is compensation as recourse after the fact. Having laws against drunk driving and unsmogged cars is a deterrant which protects people from injury. In a lawless world, you could possibly hope to extract money or get revenge on the responsible party, but that won't heal your spine or cure your cancer.

And getting that compensation in the first place would be, to say the least, a logistical challenge. The other person may very well not acknowledge fault, and not be willing to give you anything. Then the issue returns to which of you has more strong friends or can hire the more powerful security force.

2) "Almost all societies have acknowledged the homesteading principal of some property, and aggressors against it are almost unilaterally considered criminals." I do not think that is an accurate statement. In fact, I would go so far as to say the majority of societies throughout history have not acknowledged the homesteading principal. This doesn't make it any more right or wrong, because "everyone else does it" isn't an argument to begin with (if it were, you would accept "almost every society has a government" as a validation of government).

Further more, being "natural" is not a valid argument either. Violence is natural. Yet we agree that in terms of human interactions in an ideal society it is not legitimate.

3) It is very easy for a voluntary interaction to be illegitimate. The majority of voluntary interactions do not occur with perfect information on both sides. If I sell you my car, we both agreed to the transaction. But if I opened the dash yesterday and used a drill to turn back the odometer 100k miles, added body filler and new paint to cover up crash damage, and poured syrup in the crankcase to get it to seem to run smooth for the test drive, would you not agree that this transaction was invalid and you deserve your money back? If I sell you medicine, knowing full well that it is snake oil, is that transaction legitimate, even though no force was used, and you consented to buy from me? Until the FDA was created, people sold every imaginable substance as a miracle cure, including a few poisons, so again, this is not just theory. Is a drug dealer selling to an addict legitimate? The addict can technically say no, but he feels that he can't; is it voluntary? What about marketing geared towards children? If you say some of these examples don't constituent voluntary interactions, how could anything be expected to be?

Your island of isolation example was very well done, and I must concede that it is possible to have a direct democracy which is non-consensual. This is of course why most advocates of democracy maintain the importance of their being non-negotiable protections for the minority and rights that extend to all people. In your example invading your island could be seen to be violating your rights. In America, for example, the people do not get to vote on whether or not to suspend the bill of rights.

But even in your example, you are not subject to any person or group's rule, as you have equally as much authority as either of your neighbors. They can choose to use their greater numbers to take advantage of you, yes – but they could do the exact same thing without the democracy! In your example, with a formal government in place, you could protest, and appeal the law, make your case. If this world is anarchy, they can still take over your island and subjugate you. The only difference is they wouldn't have to even try to justify it. A society based on the rule of non-aggression requires that all individuals consent to its universal validity.

"Having rules helps a society function and reduces conflict and violence."

I agree. But only one rule is not criminal to back by force: the non aggression principal. (Granted this makes many assumptions, many that I will point out below)

"If you have property I want, I can kill you in your sleep, and there will be no repercussions. (If you have a tribe that will retaliate, then you have some form of government operating)."

No, I disagree. Simply because a tribe, or my family, or a corporation that I hire will deal with the repercussions does not imply a government. But since we disagree on the word government, let me be more specific: it does not imply rule, only defense (if before the death), or restitution if after. This distinction is what I am talking about. You may think it to be minor, but to many it is the difference between living free vs. living as a subject.

"The very concept of property is in itself a rule."

No, not really, property is not a rule, but a concept which is used in rules, or acted upon, say to attack/defend. But, a rule (the noun) and the verb "rule" or not synonymous, perhaps my use of the verb rule is sometimes confusing. (I usually mean rule by force)

"In order to ensure anyone other than the property owner respects it, there must be some way of enforcing it, and once you have that, you have (limited) government of some sort."

No, again, see above, it is possible to have cooperative enforcement without rule. I no longer wish to debate the effectiveness of such, but just to affirm the possibility.

"Suppose everyone in the world agreed to the non-aggression principal as the sole basis for law. Then its a situation of consent. Say one person doesn't agree to the principal, and violates it? If there are no consequences, why bother to even have it in the first place? If there are, then what you have is a democracy."

I think that you are saying that a unique circumstance (everyone agreeing to the NAP) would make a legitimate democracy? I agree! And ONLY this would constitute a legitimate democracy!

In other words, in all other cases of a democracy (backed by force), it would be illegitimate. However, in this single case, the form of rule, democracy, would be irrelevant. In fact, you could say the same about monarchies and dictatorships! If we all agree to the NAP, who cares that there is a king since he too will agree to it!

"So, if you are declaring all government inherently criminal, yet you believe in property rights, you have a problem."

I am declaring all non consenting government (rule backed by force) inherently criminal. Where is the problem with property rights again? Seriously, I missed it, could you be very specific? Is it that you believe that property rights cannot be understood without a government? Perhaps surprisingly to you, it is likely better understood by most anarchist. There is plenty of good anarchist literature out there if you don't want to take my word for it, I would suggest reading "the ethics of liberty" by Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

"Incidentally, about land rights and ownership – you pointed out before that the US stole land from Native American Indians. By both your definition of crime, and in many cases even by US law (where treaties were broken) this was illegal."

Yes, yes, yes… but more below.

"…Buying stolen property is basically an accessory to the crime (it enables the thief)…"

No, it simply makes the property still stolen. Accessory involves more, for example: it is fine to buy stolen property to return it to its original owner. But, I agreed that if you own provably stolen land and that there is a provable legitimate owner still, it should be returned to them. I will claim that this is not possible with my current land, my title search attempted to identify this (note: I am not denying the unethical loss of these records, just that it is likely impossible to do.) However, it is fairly important to understand homesteading. If the legitimate owner of any property can no longer be found, this property may be homesteaded again.

"If you homestead unoccupied land, what makes it "yours"?"

Homesteading is the only legitimate way for property to become owned in the first place. How else do you propose something become owned in the first place? All unowned property is homesteadable. You will likely point out that this is a rule and that it requires a government to back it up. But, again, I do not believe so, and prefer to not debate it. I will simply refer to the fact that this is normal acceptable behavior, it is common/natural law, most of it is even visible in the animal kingdom. No rule, and anarchy does not mean no conventions or no understanding of homesteading and property definitions and nuances.

" Should that ownership extend after your death? We live in a finite world, with a potentially infinite population."

No, the population can never be infinite. But, you certainly ask a good question. Again, convention will likely show that inheritance of legitimately (important keyword) owned property is legitimate. This is again a problem best addressed by convention, not government. I will acknowledge your concern, and simply state that I believe that if you eliminate the ability to make large illegal claims to land (I own this continent) in the first place, this is not likely to be an issue.

"The issue you raise about the scarcity of unpopulated land is a reality that was inevitable."

The scarcity is primarily one of "unruled land", not unpopulated. But most of this ruled land was never legitimately homesteaded. You cannot set foot of a continent and claim it to be yours, that is not homesteading (I doubt even by anyone's definition). So, the scarcity you see of unruled land, is actually a government product (I claim this for the king!). There is plenty of unpopulated land in this world.

"What I don't understand is how removing all accountability from individual action could possibly end up as a good thing overall."

I am not advocating removing accountability, sorry if it came off that way. In fact, I am advocating more accountability. I am advocating that people are responsible for their crimes even if any government makes these crimes "legal" (murder is murder, theft is theft, slavery is slavery…), even when replaced with some state's words for these (war is murder, taxation is theft, conscription is slavery…)! Along with this, I am pointing out a way to judge the difference between real crimes and "legal" crimes, the NAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

"No rulership or enforced authority."

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ."

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission… The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

But to avoid that confusion since many people pass judgment on what anarchy would devolve into, let's stick to simpler principals: the non aggression principal.

Let me clarify this principal in case you have a different perception of it. If I homestead land and property (tools, food…) and you attack me or attempt to steal my life/land/property, then I can defend myself without breaking the non aggression principal because I did not initiate force, you did. As long as I don't escalate the aggression, I am still not initiating it. None of this requires (although you may believe it would be better) a government to enforce (remember, I may ask for help, just as you can by attacking me). The concept of property is natural, animals will fight to protect their land and food. Almost all societies have acknowledged the homesteading principal of some property, and aggressors against it are almost unilaterally considered criminals. You seem to agree with this, even if you think that it is not possible to establish a society without government?

In other words, do you still agree that the non aggression principal is a valid way to judge a crime, despite the consequences? If not, what do you propose as a way to define crime? The non aggression principal is powerful and can be universally applied, in the sense that it gives no one privilege, or rule over another. What I am asking you to do, is to forget for a moment any ideas about practicality (if not, we will argue forever, likely uselessly), and do define a method to judge criminal behavior if you do not agree with the aggression principal. You seem to claim earlier that you agreed, yet you are defending methods which are clearly in opposition to it. So, help me get a better understanding of your ideas, since many of them seem in opposition to each other (I am sure that to you, many of mine seem contradictory). Much of this is perhaps because of our unstated assumptions.

So to recapitulate some of my assumptions/principles:

1) The non aggression principal is the only way to judge criminal behavior.

2) Scarce property, in the form of land, food, objects, self… is natural, and legitimately defendable.

3) All interactions between people/property which are voluntary and do not violate the NAP (#1), are legitimate.

If you find these contradictory, please explain why? If you prove (logically) these to be contradictory, I will likely have to adapt my thinking.

You claim:

"In a direct democracy you are not subject to "someone's" rule."

This is a vague statement, it does not address consent. If it means:

a) "In ALL direct democracies you are not subject to "someone's" rule."

it is easily provably false (see below). If however, you mean:

b) "In some direct democracies you are not subject to "someone's" rule."

Well, sure that is true, and in that case, I would claim it is non criminal.

So, for the simple disproof of (a), a simple example. Suppose that I live alone on the island of "Isolation" all by myself. There are only two other people in the world left living, they live on the island of "Democracy Rule" next door. All three of us agreed early on that I own my island, and that they own their island (just to simplify things). We also happen to agree with the 3 principals above. But, one day, the other two people decide that they want a direct democracy between the three of us. But, I like living alone, and I have no desire to participate in their democracy. They go ahead and form it anyway, and claim that I am a citizen of their democracy, and extend a vote to me. Of course, I am still no longer interested in participating: I have not given consent to be ruled by the democracy, despite it being direct!

Suppose that they decide to have a vote on a "law" that would claim that my island is now theirs, and it passes. If they act upon this vote, and invade my island, they will clearly be criminals (initiating aggressive force) with respect to the 3 principles above, despite their "direct democracy". This example at least should disprove claim (a) above since the direct democracy in my example submits me to someone's rule.

So, you see, legitimacy of "ruling" clearly depends first on consent, not the form of ruling. You seem to be supposing that the mere existence of other people means that I consent to be ruled by them, or some group of them?

In fact, I even agree that you could make a strong case that the US government is backed by a type of force (I think it's debatable, but I am as of yet undecided on that question).

I have not been using the US as my basis of democracy, for the simple reason that it is not really a democracy in the strictest sense. Given that the president is elected by appointed electors, and not popular vote, (not to mention the two party winner-take-all system of all elections) it is debatable that it is even a representative democracy.

Now, the point you bring up that there is very little unclaimed land does make the issue more complicated. And it doesn't seem fair, but I would say that this is "your" problem (or the problem of whoever wishes to opt out). What you can do is survey the rules of every state available, and choose which you live in (assuming they will have you).

Another choice you have is to be politically active, so that you make the rules yourself. In a direct democracy you are not subject to "someone's" rule. You and your neighbor's make the rules you will live by, SummerHill school style. The larger the social unit, the more dilute that power is – I see this as an argument for smaller social units.

The reason people everywhere have organized into formal units is because humans are naturally social, and dependent on each other for survival (not to mention the living standard advances allowed by specialization). Having rules helps a society function and reduces conflict and violence.

I get the feeling in this last comment that you are no longer talking about political or economic systems, but are advocating total anarchy, in the most basic and literal sense. In that case all talk of markets, and fairness, owning land, and property all goes out the window – life becomes survival of the fittest, nothing more, nothing less.

If you have property I want, I can kill you in your sleep, and there will be no repercussions. (If you have a tribe that will retaliate, then you have some form of government operating).

It is unfortunate that human nature is this way, but it is true.

The very concept of property is in itself a rule. In order to ensure anyone other than the property owner respects it, there must be some way of enforcing it, and once you have that, you have (limited) government of some sort.

Suppose everyone in the world agreed to the non-aggression principal as the sole basis for law. Then its a situation of consent. Say one person doesn't agree to the principal, and violates it? If there are no consequences, why bother to even have it in the first place? If there are, then what you have is a democracy.

So, if you are declaring all government inherently criminal, yet you believe in property rights, you have a problem. If you are going to drop the absolutes, and say that government reach should be limited, and that personal freedoms should be extended as much as possible so long as they don't infringe on others, than we are in agreement.

Incidentally, about land rights and ownership – you pointed out before that the US stole land from Native American Indians. By both your definition of crime, and in many cases even by US law (where treaties were broken) this was illegal.

Buying stolen property is basically an accessory to the crime (it enables the thief). It is not considered a legitimate transaction, and the property does not legally (or morally) belong to the person who buys it.

If you are a land owner in the US, who did you buy that land from? Who did they buy it from? What gave the initial person in the chain the right to the land? If you call the legitimacy of the US into question, it also calls into question your claim on "your" land.

If you homestead unoccupied land, what makes it "yours"? Should that ownership extend after your death? We live in a finite world, with a potentially infinite population. The issue you raise about the scarcity of unpopulated land is a reality that was inevitable.

What I don't understand is how removing all accountability from individual action could possibly end up as a good thing overall.

If you simply believe that we are arguing over consent, I am ecstatic!

It sounds like you are open to the idea that some democracies could be backed by force onto people who have never consented to it? But it sounds like you believe that by living in the US, that I have consented to the democracy's force?

Well, let me be clear, I HAVE NOT! A woman saying no to sex is clearly not consent. Would you not give me the same respect? Perhaps you think that I signed a document somewhere in time giving my future consent, something akin to a contract? It seems that you believe that simply living in the US is consent (since as I pointed out citizenship has nothing to do to whether you are submitted to the democracies rules) to be ruled?

So, let met try to check out of your system for simplicities sake, since you seem to think that I can. Suppose that I check out, I expatriate and I leave the country. Where would I go? I suppose that is my problem? I suspect that you will find that there is no land where that I can go and not be submitted to someone's rule. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe that: I at least have the right to find land that no one currently rules if such land exists?

What then, may I homestead the land? I certainly believe that I may. Most anarchists believe that I can. Common law (as developed naturally in almost all cultures, even without governments) says that I may. So, I will imagine a small island in the pacific which is not currently under the rule of any state, perhaps the island was just formed by a volcano, or an earthquake. May I move to this island and homestead it? Would you agree that at this point, that I would not have consented to any democratic rule by anyone?

When would this non-consent end? By my future actions to consent? Or someone else's future actions against me or my (is)land? In other words: if I simply chose to live on my island forever and other people attempt to take my island from me, would you agree that they are criminals? If a nation decides that I suddenly need to follow their drug rules even though no one else lives on the island with me, would they be criminals? What if that nations happens to be democratic?