Anarcho-Capitalism and Law Enforcement

[PLAYER57832]

2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.

Interesting, because most people would say that patents are part of what allows a free market, else no one has incentive to invest time and energy in developing new ideas.

They aren't. Patents are state-granted monopolies,

No, they are state-granted property rights. Why is that different from any other property right? All rights to property are either enforced or not by the state. When its "not" we have anarchy, not markets.

(1) Player, patents are state-granted monopolies. Only person A can produce patented-product X, and it is illegal for others to produce that patented-product X (without of course person A's consent). This is the definition of a monopoly. It is state-granted monopoly because patents are granted and enforced through the state's legal system. Therefore, patents are state-granted monopolies.

Technically, no, because the state is not mandating that they are the only one able to sell the idea, they are saying that the person has ownership of the idea and therefore control of it. Ownership is actually more restrictive than a monopoly, but also differs because it is not about the sales, it is about all aspects.

Also, in the real world, all anyone has to do is create a similar type thing and get a brand new patent.

"Why is that different from any other property right?"Because not all property rights are monopolies, nor are all property rights granted by the state to particular owners.

I think you have that backwards. Property rights involve more than just the ability to sell. Also, patents can be issued to multiple entities (corporations, for example).

"All rights to property are either enforced or not by the state."
Actually, property rights can be enforced by the State or by non-state groups/individuals (like you and me) simultaneously or at different times.

Only if the state or governmental authority allows. In Cuba, there is no such right. We expect it, demand it, consider it our right, and it is protected by the constitution, but it is not an inherent concept.

"When its "not" we have anarchy, not markets."
No, this is simply false. Markets can exist in anarchy, and anarchy is the absence of a State. Anarchy is not the absence of rules or laws though. If you disagree, then you're most likely mistaking "anarchy" for "chaos," which are disparate concepts.

No, establishment of property rights, whether individual or state-held or even communal is one of the most fundamental purposes of the state. Without property, there is no market.

Your premises and conclusion are all false; therefore, your argument is not sound. (I'm not even sure if it was valid; it was kind of all over the place).

Rather, you disagree, but my argument and definitions are quite sound.

If you disagree with the above, then define "monopoly," "state-granted," "anarchy," "markets," and "property rights" using a legitimate source because judging from the reasons for your disagreeing (and previous history), it is doubtful that you alone possess the requisite knowledge to be a trustworthy source.

LOL.. becuase any source that agrees with me will automatically be considered "not trustworthy" no matter how acclaimed by independent sources, cited by peer reviewed references or any other standard other than your own personal opinion.

I have provided you what you ask, you dismiss the hardest evidence as blithely as you do any opinion, so I am not longer bothering.

(2) Anyway, "I'm [still] interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system."

That's something you ignored. If you don't explain who your source is (yourself?), and why they continue to mistake today's economic system for a free market system, then how can I know that your source actually has the authority to discuss economics and politics regarding patents?

I asked you a question, obviously you refuse to answer.
Just don't pretend you are the one doing the asking.

but I'm interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system.

The underlined may be true, but a future without patent laws is simply uncertain. You could examine the change of patent time-lengths and compare that to the number of patents, but there's several problems with that analysis, which I'm not sure if you care about. Besides, it's off-topic, so please make a thread about it.

I think you rather need to study the history of our country and why patents were begun. You would be surprised.

AND.. I make no pretense that patents today are fulfilling those initial desires/needs truly. I say that the above is truly why they were initially created. Capitalists found ways to subvert that.

If you strike the word "capitalist" and put in "greedy powerful individuals" or even just "those at the top",then you have how just about every system humans envision get destroyed, including the free market. Most particularly the free market.

Okay. That in no way answered my questions (see #2).

Yeah, actually, I did. But I gave you the route to the answer, rather than spoon-feeding it to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Player, you don't have the requisite knowledge for this, and given your history, you aren't willing to learn--unless of course any tidbits confirm your worldview. I don't have time to explain to you the basic definitions of words and then show you how they apply to the topic. Sorry.

[BigBallinStalin]

With AnCap, you're free to form your own AnComm society--as long as you don't violate other people's rights in other societies.

I would think that this is where we are disagreeing. I would say that this part means that your description of anarcho-capitalism is not specific to anarcho-capitalism but is a part anarchism in general.

All forms of anarchism require this:

- Borders may be enforced by gunpoint, but not always (this can be viewed as defensive coercion, anyway)
- A set of laws and a constitution describing the process these laws are created, enforced on one at one's own will (i.e. as a literal contract)
- A set of penalties for disobeying those laws, eventually enforced not by gunpoint but by ejection from the community
- Instantaneous acceptance into the community upon signing a contract

With the social contract of an anarcho-capitalist community allowing of markets, money, capitalism to exist. These would be enumerated as a "right" in the contract.

Anarcho-communism differs only in the language of said contract (the banning of markets, money, capitalism to happen). These would not be enumerated as a "right" in the contract, but the contract is voluntary just as much as an anarcho-capitalist one is.

In the AnComm world, you can't reject the AnComm rules; therefore, there's no right to secede. Involuntary coercion would become the means of enforcement, and with the monopoly on "legitimate" law, the AnComm society becomes a de facto State.

I disagree. That is where provision #3 in my list kicks in.

Essentially, in joining an anarchist communitiy I am signing a contract allowing me Rights X, Y, and Z in exchange for Responsibilities/Following of Rules/Societal Norms A, B, and C.

Any penalties for breach of contract (by not fulfilling responsibilities/infringing on another member's rights), if any, would be enumerated in the contract.

In a traditional state, resistance to paying the penalty eventually leads to death.
In an anarchist community, resistance to paying the penalty amounts to an invalidation of the contract (i.e. expulsion from the community).

Oh, in that case, good luck without markets, property rights, prices, and money. The knowledge problem, lack of personal incentives (concerning production, maintenance, savings, consumption), and majority rule will devastate that society. They could probably look at something like the Sears Catalog, like the good 'ol Soviet Union, in order to find prices to rationalize their plans.

[thegreekdog]

Player, you don't have the requisite knowledge for this, and given your history, you aren't willing to learn--unless of course any tidbits confirm your worldview. I don't have time to explain to you the basic definitions of words and then show you how they apply to the topic. Sorry.

Marx, I don't even know what the marx is going on here.

Seriously; I tried to read this and my eyes glazed over. It's like reading a textbook. I mean to do it to expand my knowledge but then I get into stuff and I'm like "MARX YOU BBS!"

[BigBallinStalin]

Player, you don't have the requisite knowledge for this, and given your history, you aren't willing to learn--unless of course any tidbits confirm your worldview. I don't have time to explain to you the basic definitions of words and then show you how they apply to the topic. Sorry.

Marx, I don't even know what the marx is going on here.

Seriously; I tried to read this and my eyes glazed over. It's like reading a textbook. I mean to do it to expand my knowledge but then I get into stuff and I'm like "MARX YOU BBS!"

Oh my Marx! What I have I marxed?!

Was there something you wanted me to address specifically from player's post?

If not, then marx off, mate.

[thegreekdog]

Player, you don't have the requisite knowledge for this, and given your history, you aren't willing to learn--unless of course any tidbits confirm your worldview. I don't have time to explain to you the basic definitions of words and then show you how they apply to the topic. Sorry.

Marx, I don't even know what the marx is going on here.

Seriously; I tried to read this and my eyes glazed over. It's like reading a textbook. I mean to do it to expand my knowledge but then I get into stuff and I'm like "MARX YOU BBS!"

Oh my Marx! What I have I marxed?!

Was there something you wanted me to address specifically from player's post?

If not, then marx off, mate.

No. I was trying to say, without actually saying it - If I don't understand this stuff, there is no way Player understand this stuff.

[BigBallinStalin]

Marx me; try explaining the workings on US monopoly and industrial organization to a jury. I'd hate to have that job.

I recall reading in the WSJ how some of the jury were falling asleep during technical portions of the case regarding Apple and Samsung. It's crazy. That jury is going to mete out punishment and uphold (whatever) law while some of them have no idea what they're doing.