<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Anarchy Without Bombs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com</link>
	<description>Cooperation Without Coercion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:42:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on There is no libertarian case for restricted immigration by Less</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/06/19/there-is-no-libertarian-case-for-restricted-immigration/#comment-669</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Less]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=160#comment-669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@JSD  I don&#039;t see anyone here arguing that migrants are libertarians.  The point is that, factually, migration has clearly been in the direction of low welfare states and away from high welfare states, making the supposed &quot;welfare magnet&quot; argument against immigration look pretty silly.  As for motivation, we probably agree that people who move are more ambitious than people who don&#039;t move, and it is likely they are moving in order to find work.  Clearly it isn&#039;t to find welfare.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@JSD  I don&#8217;t see anyone here arguing that migrants are libertarians.  The point is that, factually, migration has clearly been in the direction of low welfare states and away from high welfare states, making the supposed &#8220;welfare magnet&#8221; argument against immigration look pretty silly.  As for motivation, we probably agree that people who move are more ambitious than people who don&#8217;t move, and it is likely they are moving in order to find work.  Clearly it isn&#8217;t to find welfare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on There is no libertarian case for restricted immigration by Just Some Dude</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/06/19/there-is-no-libertarian-case-for-restricted-immigration/#comment-668</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Just Some Dude]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=160#comment-668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Immigrants flee the high welfare states to go to the low welfare states.&quot;

Actually, immigrants flee poor states to go to prosperous states. It does not follow, however, that immigrants understand why the new state is more prosperous than their old state--or that their cultural bias toward collectivism suddenly disappears when crossing the border into low-welfare state. Many liberal Democrats have fled California to escape high taxes. Does that mean they have abandoned liberalism? I doubt it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Immigrants flee the high welfare states to go to the low welfare states.&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, immigrants flee poor states to go to prosperous states. It does not follow, however, that immigrants understand why the new state is more prosperous than their old state&#8211;or that their cultural bias toward collectivism suddenly disappears when crossing the border into low-welfare state. Many liberal Democrats have fled California to escape high taxes. Does that mean they have abandoned liberalism? I doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An Anti-IP Defense of Copyright by jimhabegger</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2009/06/19/an-anti-ip-defense-of-copyright/#comment-583</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jimhabegger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=84#comment-583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t know enough about anarchism to say whether I&#039;m an anarchist or not, so I don&#039;t know how relevant my comments will be. I&#039;m not sure what to think about eliminating copyrights and patents altogether. I just liked the spirit of your post, very much.

Copyrights and patents are tools that may or may not be useful in a healthy society. It might be that their usefulness for harmful purposes far outweighs any potential beneficial use, but I&#039;m wondering how much good it might do, really, to try to answer that question conclusively now (or ever, really), unless it&#039;s just for practice, for anarchists to practice working out their differences. I can see the value in that, as long as it doesn&#039;t distract too much from more important work, like encouraging and supporting each other in learning to practice and promote our vision and principles.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know enough about anarchism to say whether I&#8217;m an anarchist or not, so I don&#8217;t know how relevant my comments will be. I&#8217;m not sure what to think about eliminating copyrights and patents altogether. I just liked the spirit of your post, very much.</p>
<p>Copyrights and patents are tools that may or may not be useful in a healthy society. It might be that their usefulness for harmful purposes far outweighs any potential beneficial use, but I&#8217;m wondering how much good it might do, really, to try to answer that question conclusively now (or ever, really), unless it&#8217;s just for practice, for anarchists to practice working out their differences. I can see the value in that, as long as it doesn&#8217;t distract too much from more important work, like encouraging and supporting each other in learning to practice and promote our vision and principles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Elinor Ostrom&#8217;s Legacy: Managing Resources Without Government or Private Property by Less</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2012/06/12/elinor-ostroms-legacy-managing-resources-without-government-or-private-property/#comment-582</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Less]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=188#comment-582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, argument, Nicholas: I think that many of the disputes between the different varieties of anarchists about property depend on having different views of the meaning of the word.  I tried to address this in my &quot;Is Property Theft?&quot; piece.  And, as you noted, Pete Boettke and other Austrian economists have long been fans of Ostrom&#039;s work.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, argument, Nicholas: I think that many of the disputes between the different varieties of anarchists about property depend on having different views of the meaning of the word.  I tried to address this in my &#8220;Is Property Theft?&#8221; piece.  And, as you noted, Pete Boettke and other Austrian economists have long been fans of Ostrom&#8217;s work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Elinor Ostrom&#8217;s Legacy: Managing Resources Without Government or Private Property by Nicholas Panayi</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2012/06/12/elinor-ostroms-legacy-managing-resources-without-government-or-private-property/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicholas Panayi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:44:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=188#comment-581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would just point out that there might be some confusion with terminology regarding the term &#039;private property&#039;.  Both Mises and Hayek would include the kind property regimes described as private property. Mises describes his notion of property in a chapter in &#039;Socialism&#039; where his main definition of property is de-facto control over use, and where socialized or collective property is de-facto control goods in the hands of a single directing society wide organization, private property the opposite. Hayek too thought of property in similar terms. He wrote that he did not like the term &#039;private property&#039; preferring &#039;several property&#039; which is more suggestive of separated control and responsibility among different groups. The key characteristic of it being &quot;different individuals or sub-groups to pursue distinct aims, guided by their differing knowledge and skills&quot;(The Fatal Conceit p30), rather then purely private control. 

This is why some Austrians are so enthusiastic about Ostrom while still balking at the suggestion that her work is somehow a strike against private property.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would just point out that there might be some confusion with terminology regarding the term &#8216;private property&#8217;.  Both Mises and Hayek would include the kind property regimes described as private property. Mises describes his notion of property in a chapter in &#8216;Socialism&#8217; where his main definition of property is de-facto control over use, and where socialized or collective property is de-facto control goods in the hands of a single directing society wide organization, private property the opposite. Hayek too thought of property in similar terms. He wrote that he did not like the term &#8216;private property&#8217; preferring &#8216;several property&#8217; which is more suggestive of separated control and responsibility among different groups. The key characteristic of it being &#8220;different individuals or sub-groups to pursue distinct aims, guided by their differing knowledge and skills&#8221;(The Fatal Conceit p30), rather then purely private control. </p>
<p>This is why some Austrians are so enthusiastic about Ostrom while still balking at the suggestion that her work is somehow a strike against private property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Let the free market eat the rich! by Equality – In Three Senses</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/13/let-the-free-market-eat-the-rich/#comment-580</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Equality – In Three Senses]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=152#comment-580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] bargaining power over repeated transactions. If the abolition of the state would indeed lead to a &#8220;natural, mean personal wealth value, beyond which diminishing returns enter quickly, and belo..., this is an argument for the state, not against it! Inequality of wealth – sometimes vast – is [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] bargaining power over repeated transactions. If the abolition of the state would indeed lead to a &#8220;natural, mean personal wealth value, beyond which diminishing returns enter quickly, and belo&#8230;, this is an argument for the state, not against it! Inequality of wealth – sometimes vast – is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Let the free market eat the rich! by The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism &#124; Bleeding Heart Libertarians</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/13/let-the-free-market-eat-the-rich/#comment-579</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism &#124; Bleeding Heart Libertarians]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=152#comment-579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Left-libertarians share with other leftists the conviction that the redistribution of wealth can be appropriate or even required. But they deny that redistribution may reasonable be undertaken to bring about a particular pattern of wealth distribution or that it is properly the work of the state. Rather, they suggest, redistribution ought to be effected by the legal system (as it restores to people resources unjustly taken from them or their predecessors in interest, as it makes assets stolen by the state or acquired unjustly by its cronies available for homesteading, and as it denies validity to state-secured privileges that preserve the economic positions of the well-connected while keeping others poor), through solidaristic mutual aid, and through the tendency of a market liberated from privilege to “eat the rich.” [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Left-libertarians share with other leftists the conviction that the redistribution of wealth can be appropriate or even required. But they deny that redistribution may reasonable be undertaken to bring about a particular pattern of wealth distribution or that it is properly the work of the state. Rather, they suggest, redistribution ought to be effected by the legal system (as it restores to people resources unjustly taken from them or their predecessors in interest, as it makes assets stolen by the state or acquired unjustly by its cronies available for homesteading, and as it denies validity to state-secured privileges that preserve the economic positions of the well-connected while keeping others poor), through solidaristic mutual aid, and through the tendency of a market liberated from privilege to “eat the rich.” [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is Property Theft? by Is Property Theft? &#124; The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/07/is-property-theft/#comment-574</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Is Property Theft? &#124; The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=101#comment-574</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Theft? was originally written by Less Antman and published on his blog, Anarchy Without Bombs, March 7th, 2010. The following is an updated version that Antman has graciously provided for [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Theft? was originally written by Less Antman and published on his blog, Anarchy Without Bombs, March 7th, 2010. The following is an updated version that Antman has graciously provided for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Is Property Theft? &#124; The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/about/#comment-573</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Is Property Theft? &#124; The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Property Theft? was originally written by Less Antman and published on his blog, Anarchy Without Bombs, March 7th, 2010. The following is an updated [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Property Theft? was originally written by Less Antman and published on his blog, Anarchy Without Bombs, March 7th, 2010. The following is an updated [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Let the free market eat the rich! by Nonymous</title>
		<link>http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/13/let-the-free-market-eat-the-rich/#comment-568</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/?p=152#comment-568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Murray Rothbard’s support of syndicalist takeover of State-supported corporations&quot;

He backed off from that view, and the only reason he argued in favor of such things in the first place was to try and ally with the growing New Left (though he quickly realized the stupidity of the movement and split off from it).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Murray Rothbard’s support of syndicalist takeover of State-supported corporations&#8221;</p>
<p>He backed off from that view, and the only reason he argued in favor of such things in the first place was to try and ally with the growing New Left (though he quickly realized the stupidity of the movement and split off from it).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
