3 ms·

If there is no private property, then you don't own your body, as to own your body would mean you owned some private property. If you don't own your body then

• steveklabnik 16y ago
  Sorry, I forgot to add the caveat: private property means something different in the anarchist context. They make a distinction between 'private property' and 'possession,' your body would be a possession.
  • lzw 16y ago
    All physical property is the same, you exchange labor for it. This distinction, and the claim that government is hat creates the property seems to come from not thinking e notion of personal property thru. Basically, at some point, you're advocating taking property away from people ewho have up earned it by creating it or by trading their labor for it. You need a gang, a mafia, or a government to do that, especially when it's 10,0000 acres somewhere that a collective, or corporation, has put together. The only difference between a collective owning property and a corporation is that a corporation is allowed to make agreements amongst the members for how the corporation is run. The existence of a government is not necessary for the existence of corporations. These are not made up properties created by government, but collections of property made up of possibly thousands of individual explicit agreements between people. To end that have to stick your nose in as third party and break those agreements that people voluntarily entered into before came around.
    • steveklabnik 16y ago
      > All physical property is the same, you exchange labor for it. This is overly simplistic. Locke was a cool guy and all, but not everyone subscribes to his worldview. > Basically, at some point, you're advocating taking property away from people ewho have up earned it by creating it or by trading their labor for it. No, I'm not.
      • lzw 16y ago
        Yes, you are. Whether you call it a possession or property, tibias the same thing.
        • steveklabnik 16y ago
          Obviously, we're not going to come to any sort of agreement here. And we never were. The point is, your worldview is not the only one. That doesn't make mine any better or worse. Just different. Thank you for the discussion. I'm not going to respond to you any more.
• _delirium 16y ago
  It varies by what particular kind of anarchist you're talking about, but the kind of property that's most consistently objected to is a government-enforced notion of "possessions on paper", with a lot more acceptance of things that look more like personal possessions. Say, the difference between living in a house, and owning 10,000 acres of development land in suburban San Diego. The first seems vaguely like a natural sense of possession, in that you live in a place, and you don't want people intruding into your bedroom and such. But owning huge tracts of land as an absentee landlord is more of a purely government-guaranteed notion of property, pretty disconnected from any natural sense of personal possession. Put differently, property as a way of formalizing personal possession relationships is less objectionable to most anarchists (though many are skeptical of actually formalizing it) than property as a way of creating new kinds of ownership. You can see ownership of your house as just a formal ratification of "I live in this house", but ownership of 10,000 acres of land you've never visited is a pure creation of property-deed databases, and is hard to imagine existing without them. (Whether that's good or bad, or what to do about it, is another story. I consider myself sympathetic to anarchist critiques and ideals, but putting forth workable concrete proposals is hard.)
• kungfooguru 16y ago
  You are mixing up private property with personal property.