A challenge for non-anarchists

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

I don’t think it’s unusual at all. It’s probably quite common. I just believe it’s wrong to rely so heavily on the expectation of outcomes. So please, go on.

How heavily do you think I’m suggesting, and why do you think it’s wrong?

The bottom line is, if you want to say that a principle of the right to autonomy is the single, overriding moral value, then it doesn’t matter what else we agree on, we will disagree fundamentally. If this is the real source of disagreement, then I personally think it’s worth hashing out the differences in underlying moral models, to see if we can find common ground. If we can’t, then there’s no point in debating the rest.

FWIW, I think I can at least test the extreme divergent view by asking this simple question:

If hypothetically a single case of manifestation of a right that you consider fundamental and inalienable would almost certainly lead to the long and tortuous death of every human on the planet, would it be justified to take action to manifest that right?

@MadLad

Yeah, that’s it. Everyone has freedom so long as they do not interfere with the equal freedom others. Very basic stuff. For anarchism that implies “voluntary association” because there is no one forcing you to organize.

One cannot choose to be a slave under the principle of voluntary association because a slave cannot choose who he associates with. There are no legally binding agreements because there is no government or state authority to enforce them. You’re allowed to change your mind whenever you want. Pretty basic stuff.

Okay, so I’m going to suggest an intentionally absurd version of a problem with implementing this, as you are suggesting it, in order to see if there isn’t more to it than what you’re saying.

If you, I and some others withdrew from society as we currently know it, and somehow even managed to find some land that no one wanted to kick us off of, how do we distribute resources? If I agree to whatever means to distribute resources, and then later I change my mind, am I free to take the resources that were yours under the previous agreement, seeing as though I changed my mind and the agreement is void?

If not, then there must be some other foundational rules or values at play, right?

@MadLad

I’m with you. I’m both American and Canadian. In his oath of office the Prime Minister declared fealty to King Charles and his heirs, so whenever he balks about sovereignty I have to laugh because his sovereign exists over there on the other side of the pond.

While I’m in principle an anti-monarchist, it’s well down on my list of concerns.

@MadLad

Personally, I think representation is impossible, that a politician or bureaucrat could only ever represent himself and his party. After all, how can one represent someone he’s never met and doesn’t even know exists, like most of his constituents?

Well, like the governments that have eradicated starvation did. It seems like you’re objection has to do with the fact that it isn’t simple or linear, which is true. I just think all of the simple and linear alternatives fail in comparison.

To say “representation is impossible” is only meaningful if it’s a binary state. It’s a continuum. We can know something about what people want (no starvation), and we can enact policies that lead to outcomes that match that preference (the countries that eradicated starvation). I doubt we can ever know everything about people’s preferences, nor probably can we address all of them, but we can to some degree, and some is better than none. More is better than less. As far as I can see, Anarchism just addresses one preference (for agency/autonomy), and I’m not even convinced it does it well.

[MadLad]

@Dobbler

How heavily do you think I’m suggesting, and why do you think it’s wrong?

The bottom line is, if you want to say that a principle of the right to autonomy is the single, overriding moral value, then it doesn’t matter what else we agree on, we will disagree fundamentally. If this is the real source of disagreement, then I personally think it’s worth hashing out the differences in underlying moral models, to see if we can find common ground. If we can’t, then there’s no point in debating the rest.

FWIW, I think I can at least test the extreme divergent view by asking this simple question:

If hypothetically a single case of manifestation of a right that you consider fundamental and inalienable would almost certainly lead to the long and tortuous death of every human on the planet, would it be justified to take action to manifest that right

I think reliance on expected outcomes is wrong because humans cannot predict the future. When applied to our own acts, in simple and controlled environments, it’s probably fine. But when applied to politics it’s not fine. There are too many unknowns.

We do disagree fundamentally. I’m not a consequentialist and vehemently oppose utilitarianism. But there are plenty reasons to debate the rest.

As for your hypothetical, I think it would be justified to violate someone’s rights should he be violating the rights of another. If he is threatening the lives of others it would be prudent to violate some of his rights, restrain him from carrying out his threats, at least until proven otherwise.

Would you risk violating people’s rights, perhaps killing them, if you believed it would lead to one of your preferred expected outcomes, like maybe the happiness of a majority of people?

@Dobbler

Okay, so I’m going to suggest an intentionally absurd version of a problem with implementing this, as you are suggesting it, in order to see if there isn’t more to it than what you’re saying.

If you, I and some others withdrew from society as we currently know it, and somehow even managed to find some land that no one wanted to kick us off of, how do we distribute resources? If I agree to whatever means to distribute resources, and then later I change my mind, am I free to take the resources that were yours under the previous agreement, seeing as though I changed my mind and the agreement is void?

If not, then there must be some other foundational rules or values at play, right?

We wouldn’t distribute because there is no system of distribution. We would share, borrow, trade, or gift, without the oversight of a third party to intervene or otherwise steal a portion of our property.

You would not be free to steal my resources under any circumstances. But if you renege on a deal, agreement, or promise, then I have learned that you cannot be trusted, cut my losses, and don’t deal with you anymore. Whether that is your loss, or mine, who knows?

@Dobbler

Well, like the governments that have eradicated starvation did. It seems like your objection has to do with the fact that it isn’t simple or linear, which is true. I just think all of the simple and linear alternatives fail in comparison.

To say “representation is impossible” is only meaningful if it’s a binary state. It’s a continuum. We can know something about what people want (no starvation), and we can enact policies that lead to outcomes that match that preference (the countries that eradicated starvation). I doubt we can ever know everything about people’s preferences, nor probably can we address all of them, but we can to some degree, and some is better than none. More is better than less. As far as I can see, Anarchism just addresses one preference (for agency/autonomy), and I’m not even convinced it does it well.

It is a binary state, for me. Representing someone else is performative. A representation is a likeness or image. It’s pretending, acting, or theater. There is no continuum here as there are no degrees of pretend. So statism has to contend with itself insofar as it is an oligarchic system of exploitation premised on a series of fables and play-acting. I hope I never find myself in support of it.

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

We do disagree fundamentally. I’m not a consequentialist and vehemently oppose utilitarianism. But there are plenty reasons to debate the rest.

Maybe you can make that case for me. I’m not convinced.

@MadLad

Would you risk violating people’s rights, perhaps killing them, if you believed it would lead to one of your preferred expected outcomes, like maybe the happiness of a majority of people?

Re. killing them, in theory yes, but in practice mainly no. I mean, like with starving, we know without having to do deep studies that people don’t like to be killed. And not just a little, they REALLY don’t like to be killed. Having said that, there’ a carve out that I think we’d both agree to, for allowing for consensual euthanasia… although the devil is in the details.

I don’t think we think about the word “rights” the same way, so we’d be talking past each other to get much deeper into this answer. I asked you previously (and you didn’t respond) something along the line of, what does it mean for someone to have a right to something that they cannot expect to attain? To intentionally be absurd, if we both stipulated that I had a right to 100 trillion dollars, what does that translate to? What does having that right mean?

@MadLad

We wouldn’t distribute because there is no system of distribution. We would share, borrow, trade, or gift, without the oversight of a third party to intervene or otherwise steal a portion of our property.

But how do you determine what belongs to whom? Property is a durable collective agreement. Durable in that you can’t just change your mind about or it’s a pointless concept.

@MadLad

It is a binary state, for me.

But we’re not describing your idea here, we’re talking about mine. Sorry to be blunt, but in this specific context, what you think doesn’t matter. I have specified real world examples that, I think, are easily understandable and are clearly interpretable as a continuum.

@MadLad

I hope I never find myself in support of it.

That has a dogmatic ring to it.

[MadLad]

@Dobbler

Re. killing them, in theory yes, but in practice mainly no. I mean, like with starving, we know without having to do deep studies that people don’t like to be killed. And not just a little, they REALLY don’t like to be killed. Having said that, there’ a carve out that I think we’d both agree to, for allowing for consensual euthanasia… although the devil is in the details.

Sure, but to reach an “expected outcome” of your choosing, like the happiness of the greatest number of people, would you kill someone if you believed doing so led to the achievement of your outcome?

I want a straight yes or no answer because if you would murder someone on the possibility that doing so would yield your expected outcome, then I could assume you’d permit acts of lesser severity such as breaking promises, lying, theft, and so on.

Knowing the answer to this would inform any reasonable person that a regime which would use murder, lying, theft etc. cannot be trusted, and thus such a politics would inherently undermine itself since much of community and organization requires a high degree of trust between its individuals.

@Dobbler

I don’t think we think about the word “rights” the same way, so we’d be talking past each other to get much deeper into this answer. I asked you previously (and you didn’t respond) something along the line of, what does it mean for someone to have a right to something that they cannot expect to attain? To intentionally be absurd, if we both stipulated that I had a right to 100 trillion dollars, what does that translate to? What does having that right mean?

To me, a “right” is an ethical principle regarding human actions one should not intervene in. If I give you the right to free speech, for example, I would never intervene in your speaking, and in fact I would actively defend you from those who would. So I wouldn’t give you a right to a trillion dollars because money isn’t a human action, but I would give you the right to pursue any amount of money so long as it didn’t interfere with another’s right to do the same.

What is a “right” to you?

@Dobbler

But how do you determine what belongs to whom? Property is a durable collective agreement. Durable in that you can’t just change your mind about or it’s a pointless concept.

We find out who is entitled to what by determining whether he acquired it justly. If he stole it, he is not entitled to it. If he made it, traded for it, bought it, he is entitled to it.

How would you determine what belongs to whom?

@Dobbler

But we’re not describing your idea here, we’re talking about mine. Sorry to be blunt, but in this specific context, what you think doesn’t matter. I have specified real world examples that, I think, are easily understandable and are clearly interpretable as a continuum.

No problem. I don’t mind that you believe such an idea, I just believe you’re wrong and haven’t read anything to convince me otherwise.

[Johnnywas]

@MadLad

We find out who is entitled to what by determining whether he acquired it justly. If he stole it, he is not entitled to it. If he made it, traded for it, bought it, he is entitled to it.

Who decides whether he aquired it justly.

Why is he entitled it because he traded for it?

As we cant judge these things effectively, society quickly becomes a Kleptocracy

Or as you might describe it “an
an oligarchic system of exploitation premised on a series of fables and play-acting”

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

Sure, but to reach an “expected outcome” of your choosing, like the happiness of the greatest number of people, would you kill someone if you believed doing so led to the achievement of your outcome?

I want a straight yes or no answer because if you would murder someone on the possibility that doing so would yield your expected outcome, then I could assume you’d permit acts of lesser severity such as breaking promises, lying, theft, and so on.

Why a straight yes or no? Why wouldn’t you want an answer that embraces the nuance that happens to exist in the world?

The question is intentionally naive and oversimple. Part of the outcome of taking actions that would, as a rule be considered wrong, is that people lose confidence in the state, and in the long run, that does lead to worse outcomes. Why is the future trust of reasonable people not part of the expected outcome? Criticisms of consequentialism usually require that we ignore some fairly obvious aspect of outcomes for no reason. The bottom line is, if you want to present a clear and unambiguous counter-example, it actually has to lead to a clear and unambiguously good outcome. If it leads to a good outcome, I’m not sure what the criticism would possibly be.

If the criticism is that there will always be some ambiguity, then my response is that yes, this is the case with the real life application of every moral theory, because life is complicated and confusing.

@MadLad

To me, a “right” is an ethical principle regarding human actions one should not intervene in. If I give you the right to free speech, for example, I would never intervene in your speaking, and in fact I would actively defend you from those who would. So I wouldn’t give you a right to a trillion dollars because money isn’t a human action, but I would give you the right to pursue any amount of money so long as it didn’t interfere with another’s right to do the same.

See, this is where I see a disconnect. You are talking about giving me rights. Who is the arbiter of rights in your formulation? What if the rights of two people appear to be in conflict? By what principle is the conflict resolved?

@MadLad

What is a “right” to you?

An expression of social norms in regard to morality or legality.

@MadLad

We find out who is entitled to what by determining whether he acquired it justly. If he stole it, he is not entitled to it. If he made it, traded for it, bought it, he is entitled to it.

“Stole it” presupposes the notion of property. You can’t appeal to property to ascertain property.

Let me restate the thought experiment. You, I and others are removed from society/statehood as we know it, and dropped one a deserted island. We don’t come with anything. So we agree about what land and resources belong to whom, and I change my mind, and take what was “yours” by the previous agreement.

@MadLad

How would you determine what belongs to whom?

I don’t want to drop out of society. I’m roughly happy with how we deal with property as it is. I might pick some nits around the edges.

Or if that sounds evasive, my answer is that when you make this sort of agreement, you’re not allowed to just change your mind. It’s a contract, and as long as it was entered into fairly, it’s binding.

@MadLad

No problem. I don’t mind that you believe such an idea, I just believe you’re wrong and haven’t read anything to convince me otherwise.

Sure, but if you’re going to critique, understand what I believe before you critique it. Who knows, maybe it will sound more reasonable after you understand.

[MadLad]

@Dobbler

Why a straight yes or no? Why wouldn’t you want an answer that embraces the nuance that happens to exist in the world?

The question is formulated in such a way as to illicit a “yes” or “no”. It eliminates room for vague responses, equivocations, and other fallacies.

@Dobbler

The question is intentionally naive and oversimple. Part of the outcome of taking actions that would, as a rule be considered wrong, is that people lose confidence in the state, and in the long run, that does lead to worse outcomes. Why is the future trust of reasonable people not part of the expected outcome? Criticisms of consequentialism usually require that we ignore some fairly obvious aspect of outcomes for no reason. The bottom line is, if you want to present a clear and unambiguous counter-example, it actually has to lead to a clear and unambiguously good outcome. If it leads to a good outcome, I’m not sure what the criticism would possibly be.

If the criticism is that there will always be some ambiguity, then my response is that yes, this is the case with the real life application of every moral theory, because life is complicated and confusing

Actions are not outcomes, and the steps to achieve an expected outcome are not the same as the ends you’re aiming for. I just want to understand to what extent the ends justify the means, what actions you’re willing to take, what morals, rights, lives you’re willing to violate in order to achieve your “expected outcome”.

You said that if you can be reasonably sure that a course of action is likely to improve things (ie. you’re reasonably sure that killing an innocent person will lead to more happiness for the greater amount of people), can be undone if it causes more harm than good (it’s just one innocent person and you’re sure it will cause less harm than good), and can’t reasonably be predicted to be catastrophic (you’re reasonably sure it will lead to the greater happiness of the greater amount of people), you’d do it.

So would you kill an innocent person in order to achieve your expected outcome, yes or no?

@Dobbler

See, this is where I see a disconnect. You are talking about giving me rights. Who is the arbiter of rights in your formulation? What if the rights of two people appear to be in conflict? By what principle is the conflict resolved?

Anyone can confer a right to another. There is no scientific evidence that there exists a special class of human beings who possess a unique ability of conferring rights. The divine right of kings was at least logically consistent, but the divine right of parliament or politicians lacks any such consistency.

If the rights of two people appear to be in conflict preferably they work it out through compromise, as human beings have been doing since they could talk. Absent that, they could find others to mediate. There are plenty reasonable possibilities that need not require state officialdom, law, and the coercive enforcement of state job-holders, which was never infallible to begin with.

@Dobbler

I don’t want to drop out of society. I’m roughly happy with how we deal with property as it is. I might pick some nits around the edges.

Or if that sounds evasive, my answer is that when you make this sort of agreement, you’re not allowed to just change your mind. It’s a contract, and as long as it was entered into fairly, it’s binding.

What do you mean by “drop out of society”? A government isn’t a society as far as I’m aware.

Contracts are legal documents, so of course in an Anarchist society there would be no legal contracts. The penalty for violating an agreement would not be punitive, but social and reputational.

[MadLad]

@Johnnywas

Who decides whether he aquired it justly.

Why is he entitled it because he traded for it?

As we cant judge these things effectively, society quickly becomes a Kleptocracy

Or as you might describe it “an

an oligarchic system of exploitation premised on a series of fables and play-acting”

You and I could decide.

Trade is a just transaction because it involves the voluntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Therefore all involved in such transactions are entitled to their properties. Unjust transactions would be theft or robbery, and so property acquired in such a manner are not entitled to their property. This accords with basic, common-sense intuitions which I believe most people can determine.

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

The question is formulated in such a way as to illicit a “yes” or “no”. It eliminates room for vague responses, equivocations, and other fallacies.

The question was designed to be a rhetorical logic trap, not an honest inquiry. You’re not asking a question, you’re trying to make a point in the form of a question. It is more intellectually honest just to make it in the form of a declarative statement.

I answered without, to my knowledge, any fallacies or equivocation, and I think I was less vague in my answer than you were in your question.

@MadLad

Actions are not outcomes, and the steps to achieve an expected outcome are not the same as the ends you’re aiming for. I just want to understand to what extent the ends justify the means, what actions you’re willing to take, what morals, rights, lives you’re willing to violate in order to achieve your “expected outcome”.

You said that if you can be reasonably sure that a course of action is likely to improve things (ie. you’re reasonably sure that killing an innocent person will lead to more happiness for the greater amount of people), can be undone if it causes more harm than good (it’s just one innocent person and you’re sure it will cause less harm than good), and can’t reasonably be predicted to be catastrophic (you’re reasonably sure it will lead to the greater happiness of the greater amount of people), you’d do it.

So would you kill an innocent person in order to achieve your expected outcome, yes or no?

If a citizenry couldn’t feel confident that they would be arbitrarily murdered, that would be an outcome that would essentially dissolve any benefit the state could accrue, so you’re requiring I ignore a massive expected outcome in order to make the situation seem counter-intuitive.

If a single person had a virus that we knew would entirely eradicate all known life, and the only way to stop its contagion was to kill an innocent person, then 100% we should kill them. Wouldn’t you kill one innocent person to save all life on the planet?

So that’s a clear criticism of the naive form of the question, and a clear yes, if the outcome was actually and unambiguously better, then yes, kill the innocent person. The point is that it is hard to imagine a real world situation where we would have the required certainty about all of the likely outcomes to be able to make such an extreme judgement, and that’s not a nuance captured in the cavalier formation of the question, as if making such a decision was a casual consideration.

@MadLad

What do you mean by “drop out of society”? A government isn’t a society as far as I’m aware.

Forget opt-out of society, it’s not relevant. The thought experiment is that we are dropped onto a desert island with no previously owned property.

@MadLad

Contracts are legal documents, so of course in an Anarchist society there would be no legal contracts. The penalty for violating an agreement would not be punitive, but social and reputational.

I don’t care what you call it. How do you agree what belongs to whom, and what happens if someone changes their mind and takes what was previously agreed to be yours?

Or if you prefer, tomorrow, all government is dissolved. How is the property that was owned by the state divided? Must everyone agree with how it’s divided? That’s 8.3 billion people that need to agree. If everyone agrees, what if I change my mind and decide I should have more?

[Johnnywas]

@MadLad

Therefore all involved in such transactions are entitled to their properties.

What about people who are not party to ths transaction ( third parties amd future generations). Do they not have rights?

Those rights and the original rights need to be defined and people need to be able to enforce them.

@MadLad

Unjust transactions would be theft or robbery, and so property acquired in such a manner are not entitled to their property.

If property is liable to stolen by armed gangs only a powerful state can enforce property rights.

You amd I might agree to an appoint a policeman but this is not anarchy. It is the state envisaged by Hobbes.

@MadLad

This accords with basic, common-sense intuitions which I believe most people can determine.

Indeed, common sense intuitions lead to codeification of law, enforced by a state. That is what most people believe.

[MadLad]

@Dobbler

If a citizenry couldn’t feel confident that they would be arbitrarily murdered, that would be an outcome that would essentially dissolve any benefit the state could accrue, so you’re requiring I ignore a massive expected outcome in order to make the situation seem counter-intuitive.

I already said the expected outcome is that the majority of your citizenry would be happy. I don’t mind if you change it to whatever “expected outcome” you wish so long as I don’t need to read anymore quibbling about it.

@Dobbler

If a single person had a virus that we knew would entirely eradicate all known life, and the only way to stop its contagion was to kill an innocent person, then 100% we should kill them. Wouldn’t you kill one innocent person to save all life on the planet?

And there we have it.

No, I would not kill an innocent person because I don’t wish to treat people unjustly. He has done nothing to deserve it. I’d probably prefer to help him.

Besides, what if you’re wrong? If you were to tell me you need to kill a man because he is carrying a virus that you knew was going to eradicate all life, and for some odd reason that guy was still alive, I’d probably think you’ve lost your mind.

How could you know that killing him would save all life as we know it? In fact, knowing such an outcome is impossible, even if after killing him life went on as usual. The only possible expected outcome of your actions would be that you killed an innocent person, and you’d have to spend the rest of your life convincing the rest of us your expected outcome came to fruition.

@Dobbler

I don’t care what you call it. How do you agree what belongs to whom, and what happens if someone changes their mind and takes what was previously agreed to be yours?

Or if you prefer, tomorrow, all government is dissolved. How is the property that was owned by the state divided? Must everyone agree with how it’s divided? That’s 8.3 billion people that need to agree. If everyone agrees, what if I change my mind and decide I should have more?

If you don’t care what I say and impugn my motives whenever I ask you questions, there is no point in going along with these exceedingly outlandish thought experiments. I’m sure you could figure it out. Anything is better than submitting the majority of people to a life of servitude in the off chance the they may become unruly, just as anything is better than killing an innocent person based on a half-baked hunch. I just happen to believe human beings are adaptive and can coordinate and cooperate with each other well enough. Apparently you do not.

That’s why it boggles the mind to me that the statist can believe human beings are unable to figure out how to run their own lives, decide on who owns what, yet they’ll put human beings in positions of power, allow them to decide on the conditions of everyone else’s lives, and grovel thereby. It’s clear to me that the underlying assumption behind this kind of thinking is that some people are meant to lead, are superior, while others are meant to be led, are inferior. The utilitarian defense of slavery and the fear of the “expected outcomes” of its institutional collapse comes to mind.

[MadLad]

@Johnnywas

What about people who are not party to ths transaction ( third parties amd future generations). Do they not have rights?

Those rights and the original rights need to be defined and people need to be able to enforce them.

They have the exact same rights. Do you find yourself unable or unequipped to defend another’s rights? Or are you just so inured to other people doing it for you that you find no need to do so?

@Johnnywas

If property is liable to stolen by armed gangs only a powerful state can enforce property rights.

You amd I might agree to an appoint a policeman but this is not anarchy. It is the state envisaged by Hobbes.

One of the most recent states, The Islamic State, was able to seize the properties of millions within the jurisdiction of at least two governments, and essentially erect their own state on top of others. That was, at least, until the stateless forces of the Kurdish people gave them a whooping.

The state envisaged by Hobbes is self-refuting, in my mind. Why would someone employ the same species of animal who in his natural state is in the condition which is called war, and give him absolute power over others?

@Johnnywas

Indeed, common sense intuitions lead to codeification of law, enforced by a state. That is what most people believe.

And most people believed slavery was a normal and legal part of society.

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

Besides, what if you’re wrong? If you were to tell me you need to kill a man because he is carrying a virus that you knew was going to eradicate all life, and for some odd reason that guy was still alive, I’d probably think you’ve lost your mind.

Why do you think that’s not a consideration for consequentialism? Of course the likelihood of being mistaken is a consideration, as well as the possible consequences of being wrong. Which is exactly why I note that it’s hard to imagine a real world situation where we would have the confidence to reasonably make such a decision. This is exactly the point I’m making about an absurdly over-vague hypothetical. You’ll note that my answer specifically addressed this, but that wasn’t part of your demand of a “yes or no”.

@MadLad

How could you know that killing him would save all life as we know it?

You asked a hypothetical question, I offered a hypothetical answer. If we hypothetically knew for certain, then the answer is easy. If we can’t know for certain, then the answer is different.

@MadLad

In fact, knowing such an outcome is impossible, even if after killing him life went on as usual. The only possible expected outcome of your actions would be that you killed an innocent person, and you’d have to spend the rest of your life convincing the rest of us your expected outcome came to fruition.

Right. So based on what I’ve proposed, knowing that we can’t be certain, what would the answer be? I’ve already told you, but you seem to prefer giving me the strawman version of consequentialism rather than listening to what I’m saying.

@MadLad

If you don’t care what I say and impugn my motives whenever I ask you questions, there is no point in going along with these exceedingly outlandish thought experiments.

I do care what you think, which is why I’m asking. If there’s no point replying, then stop. As far as me impugning your motives, do you honestly dispute that the question about consequentialism was rhetorical, and not driven by curiosity? If I was mistaken, I will re-evaluate my response. I certainly don’t “impugn (your) motives whenever (you) ask (me) questions”. Just that once, and I think justifiably so.

As for the rest, I’m still honestly curious about your answer regarding property. Whatever your critiques of “statism”, however well justified they may be, it doesn’t mean that we can’t, nor shouldn’t evaluate the alternatives for viability. I am skeptical, but I’m not in principle opposed to the notion that there is a preferable way to live that doesn’t involve organising in a state like way. You aren’t giving me any reason to change my skepticism.