4 ms·

Because the concept of "ownership" doesn't really mean anything unless it can be enforced. What's the point of owning a house if you can't live in it because so

by deet 5y ago

Because the concept of "ownership" doesn't really mean anything unless it can be enforced. What's the point of owning a house if you can't live in it because someone else is squatting in it? Since there doesn't seem to be a way to decentralize the enforcement of real property ownership (as enforcement could involve violence, which the state has a monopoly on given our current social contracts), we're stuck with centralization in at least one component of the "ownership-enforcement" pair... So then what's the point of decentralization at all?

WFHRenaissance 5y ago
> Since there doesn't seem to be a way to decentralize the enforcement of real property ownership Private security firms exist. One theory for a way forward (not advocating): https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick addresses some of the holes in this text, but there are options.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  These theories ineveitably boil down to "the group with the ability to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence wins", and then argues that group should be selected on the basis of payment rather than voting.
  - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
    Yep, Nozick's conclusion is that the competition of different security providers would ultimately culminate in a monopoly taking hold and functioning as a minimal state. SEE: minarchy
- elevader 5y ago
  That sounds like a horrible "might makes right" scenario. If everybody just hires their own goons then the actual enforcement lies in who has more guns/people to enforce whatever they want, not in magical internet points.
  - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
    Eh, I see your point, but theorists of polycentric law seem to think that it's possible that most firm versus firm violence would be mitigated via reparatory payments and agreements. They'd be businesses after all.

by deet 5y ago

WFHRenaissance 5y ago

> Since there doesn't seem to be a way to decentralize the enforcement of real property ownership Private security firms exist. One theory for a way forward (not advocating): https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense https://mises.org/library/private-production-defense Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Nozick addresses some of the holes in this text, but there are options.

dsr_ 5y ago
These theories ineveitably boil down to "the group with the ability to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence wins", and then argues that group should be selected on the basis of payment rather than voting.
- WFHRenaissance 5y ago
  Yep, Nozick's conclusion is that the competition of different security providers would ultimately culminate in a monopoly taking hold and functioning as a minimal state. SEE: minarchy
elevader 5y ago
That sounds like a horrible "might makes right" scenario. If everybody just hires their own goons then the actual enforcement lies in who has more guns/people to enforce whatever they want, not in magical internet points.
- WFHRenaissance 5y ago
  Eh, I see your point, but theorists of polycentric law seem to think that it's possible that most firm versus firm violence would be mitigated via reparatory payments and agreements. They'd be businesses after all.