I believe that Argumentation Ethics is great as a way of supporting Voluntarist and Anarchist philosophy, not just specifically Anarcho-Capitalism. If a Communist accepts that debating with others and convincing them to live as they would like to live, personally rejecting their own right to own private property and consenting to live in a community where property is held publicly, is preferable to using violence to mandate such a behavior in others. Then we can accept certain forms of Anarcho-Communism (typically known as Rothbardian Communism in Anarcho-Capitalist circles) are compatible with Anarcho-Capitalism.
@Matthew Apsey Communism is not immune to reform, the forces of ideological natural selection will take hold, Rothbardian-Communist already exist in this world although are few in number, we can up those numbers, enforce the NAP against violators, spread the ideals of property rights to the Commies, and naturally over time, the most successful version of Communism, which would be a NAP compliant version, would survive the ideological competition. If Marx can influence a majority of the world with his writings despite being a mentally ill NEET living off his wife's rich friends, we have all the ability in the world to out compete him.
@Matthew Apsey Don't give up. People are lazy and selfish, yes. But we can use their selfishness to convince them that their laziness is killing them and taking away their futures. It won't be easy but it's possible. Keep believing my man.
I believe there are three ways for property to be gained legitimacy, the two mentioned in the book, original appropriation and consensual exchange, but also, Counter-Homesteading. When an agent commits an act of aggression resulting in a homicide against another to gain a piece of property, the agent is a murderer and thief, and as such, the property is not held by a legitimate owner, or it could be said to be held by the wrongful owner. Should there be no rightful living benefactors entitled through contract to regain this piece of lost property, the property is now in the possession of someone who has no right to it, therefore, the property is "de jure unowned". Open to be homesteaded by any individual who wishes to do so, but since this is not the mixing of labor with an unowned resource, this is the mixing of labor (the labor of catching the thief and taking what they have stolen that is) with a de facto possessed yet de jure unowned property, it would be appropriate to call this Counter-Homesteading. Counter as in opposition to the wrongful owner. This includes property purchased through theft, and taxation, naturally.
I agree with you, but I don't like the term counter-homesteading or your classification system. What you describe is just homesteading. Homesteading is the act of acquiring a currently-unowned resource. This would include original appropriation (of a resource never previously owned) and secondary appropriation (of a resource previously owned but currently unowned). The example you give would be an example of the latter, which would also include cases of appropriation of abandoned resources.
I don't know what you mean by that. I like this book for the same reasons Stephan Kinsella talked about in his Foreword to it... "Chase Rachels’s A Spontaneous Order is... a fresh approach which has all the right ingredients: it is anchored in and aware of the anarcho-capitalist and Austrian economic literature and insights, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel; it is accessible and aimed at a wide audience; it is up to date; it is lively and the author’s passion for liberty is clearly evident throughout. Importantly, Rachels recognizes the fundamental role that economic scarcity plays in the formation of social and property norms, as Professor Hoppe has repeatedly emphasized. And while A Spontaneous Order is not some dense, thousand page musty tome, it is wide-ranging in scope, covering the major issues of concern to advocates of liberty: from the basics, such as epistemology, justifications for libertarian norms, and foundational issues like property and the theory of contract, which is informed by Rothbard’s underappreciated and revolutionary title-transfer theory of contract. This focus on essentials and on clarity of expression enables Rachels to tackle several important applications, many of which receive short shrift in other works-such as corporate limited liability, intellectual property law, money and banking, monopolies and cartels, and a host of other practical issues and applications such as health care, defense, roads, environmentalism, education, and others." - Stephan Kinsella
@@ManAgainstTheState Like S.H. said, I think it's the fact that this went on to write a pretty unacceptable book on supporting the alt-right. Most of here are reasonable though, and will say to not to use ad-hominems (as in let's take this piece of literature for what it itself says, not what the author later went on to say), and to not feel guilt for reading a work with nothing in it that preaches the stupidity its writer later went on to spout.
