13 ms·

> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? What isn't? How could you get individuals to give up the

> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production? What isn't? How could you get individuals to give up their property without the use of force, which would most likely come from the state?

jahaja 13y ago
I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property. e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.
- crusso 13y ago
  And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down? This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.
  - jahaja 13y ago
    Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated. So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend. So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.
duairc 13y ago
You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house. Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  Well, strictly speaking, abolishing the state does not prevent the use of force - it simply removes a single arbitrator of force. If the state were abolished, then the landlord is free to use his own force to attempt to remove you. If this works or not / is a good idea or not for the landlord depends on the situation (ie does he believe that you can come back and retaliate with more force than he himself can muster).
  - hkarthik 13y ago
    yeah we tried that in the middle ages. It was called feudalism :)
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Really now? If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore? Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist? Or would everyone perhaps willingly part with all their belongings because they believed their property rights had vanished with the State? Would you and your friends go rape all the women you could get your hands on, purely because without the State, people would no longer have the right to control their own bodies? .. See what I'm getting at here? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider who's got it completely backwards?

jahaja 13y ago

I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property. e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.

crusso 13y ago
And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down? This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.
- jahaja 13y ago
  Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated. So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend. So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.

duairc 13y ago

You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house. Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.

icegreentea 13y ago
Well, strictly speaking, abolishing the state does not prevent the use of force - it simply removes a single arbitrator of force. If the state were abolished, then the landlord is free to use his own force to attempt to remove you. If this works or not / is a good idea or not for the landlord depends on the situation (ie does he believe that you can come back and retaliate with more force than he himself can muster).
- hkarthik 13y ago
  yeah we tried that in the middle ages. It was called feudalism :)
anoncowherd 13y ago
>> Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property. Really now? If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore? Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist? Or would everyone perhaps willingly part with all their belongings because they believed their property rights had vanished with the State? Would you and your friends go rape all the women you could get your hands on, purely because without the State, people would no longer have the right to control their own bodies? .. See what I'm getting at here? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider who's got it completely backwards?