From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 00:24:24 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>
>
>>>### Agreed. However, how do you insure the control of immigration,
>>>without some sort of coercive intervention? A system all but
>>>indistinguishable from a state will evolve as soon as there are
>>>enough citizens willing to stop immigration.
>>>
>>>
>>A fence is not coercive, any more than my sidearm is coercing you into
>>not killing me. Georgism is an invalid and dead concept, and should
>>stay that way.
>>
>>
>>
>
>### Imagine your neighbor starts growing apples on his land, and invites a
>few thousands of poor, totally untrustworthy people to work his farm. He
>makes good money, better than you. Soon there is a sizable number of
>farmers, who although initially staunch anarchists and libertarians, find
>having peons on their land is good for business. It is difficult for you to
>compete with them, and soon your fence and sidearm are no longer up to date.
>
>One day the peons get restive. The owner of the land which they are working
>sits idly as a bunch of them, armed with bigger and better guns, cross your
>fence, and tell you to get lost, or else.
>
>Tell me, how is the anarchic society going to prevent this scenario.
>
>Rafal
>
>
With binding arbitration enforced by the local citizenry. Your property
rights were obviously violated and initiation of force was made. What
makes you think these dirt farmers could come up with bigger and better
guns anyway?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:07 MST