5 ms·

The only way to protect property is by force. At that point you're talking about imposing your concept of your property on others. To me that sounds immoral, bu

The only way to protect property is by force. At that point you're talking about imposing your concept of your property on others. To me that sounds immoral, but I am not an "anarcho-capitalist".

anoncowherd 13y ago
Property can only be defended (by force) after someone tries to take it from you. The aggressor is immoral.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  No, property is defined by force. Without force, it becomes the commons. If you plant an apple orchard and leave it alone, and someone takes an apple, that's improving the commons. If you plant an apple orchard, and someone takes an apple, and you shoot him, then we've got private property.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    But can't we simply compromise and have public means of production with private residential property? As a libertarian socialist this seems like the best way to move past this debate until we implement such a system. I agree with your point, but I'd rather not expound the hypotheticals containing a married couple and child, being visited in the night by some unrelated teens who feel it is their right to sleep in the same room and said couple's child. Your thoughts?
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions. So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most hardcore, deontological minarcho-capitalists and revolutionary socialists.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        Agreed. I've always been a proponent of dual power reformation. We need to definitely move towards having more "commons" and less "Owned by PLC INC". That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned. But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        >That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?
    - loopdoend 13y ago
      If you remove the loaded language in "private residential property" and rephrase as simply "residence", i.e. your residence where you are living, then we aren't talking about property as a means of production, which is where the sticking point is. Your residence is your possession, and you have every right to privacy.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        That was my interpretation of what anoncowherd meant. To me, anarcho-capitalists are necessary for reformist action that can expand rights and fight coercion. Any arguments for the abolishment of wage slavery can and should be had, but lets not forget that we're able to discuss that issue, which seems to be the biggest sticking point between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists. That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 for some clarification. In case it helps, consider the following two ways of thinking about land as property. 1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it. 2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be. I think both 1 and 2 make sense.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> No, property is defined by force. Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      >Or, it's defined by property rights? Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please. Oh, wait, it's your gun.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        Rights are an idea.
        tokenizer 13y ago
        I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc. Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes. Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling. Taxes = Theft, Government = the Monopoly on Violence, and Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power. Your thoughts?
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc. Agreed. >> Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes Yep, it's about taxes in the sense that Tax Farms want to retain their cattle, so they make it difficult for the cattle to leave, while still maintaining an illusion of freedom. Even a complete sheep would realize he's a slave if he weren't free to leave "his" country. >> Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling. Mandatory collective schooling, but imposed on everyone by something else than the state? .. That doesn't sound right either. Anything that is based on aggressing against people is immoral. >> Taxes = Theft I'm fine with "robbery", "rape", and "theft" and so on. But extortion is more accurate. >> Government = the Monopoly on Violence Yes, and thoroughly immoral. >> Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power This is where we disagree, it seems. You seem to be referring to Crony-Capitalism, or "Crapitalism". Corporations buy State power and using it to their own benefit, and of course, that will continue for as long as there is power to be bought. If there's nothing to bribe, then you can't bribe. But in reality, Capitalism is just what people do in their pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges, contracts, agreements, and investments, etc. All backed by respect for property rights, of course. Without property rights, there would be just about no wealth in the world, because no one could expect to benefit from any value they might produce. The absence of coercion ~ a free market ~ freedom ~ Capitalism. They all go hand in hand.

The only way to protect property is by force. At that point you're talking about imposing your concept of your property on others. To me that sounds immoral, but I am not an "anarcho-capitalist".

anoncowherd 13y ago

Property can only be defended (by force) after someone tries to take it from you. The aggressor is immoral.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
No, property is defined by force. Without force, it becomes the commons. If you plant an apple orchard and leave it alone, and someone takes an apple, that's improving the commons. If you plant an apple orchard, and someone takes an apple, and you shoot him, then we've got private property.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  But can't we simply compromise and have public means of production with private residential property? As a libertarian socialist this seems like the best way to move past this debate until we implement such a system. I agree with your point, but I'd rather not expound the hypotheticals containing a married couple and child, being visited in the night by some unrelated teens who feel it is their right to sleep in the same room and said couple's child. Your thoughts?
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Honestly, I think the most rational thing to do is shift the conversation to specific alternative institutions. So, for instance, if you propose "We should replace today's join-stock companies with joint-stock cooperatives, and institute commons trusts, empowered to levee taxes on economic rents, for management of public resources", you're likely to get a pretty broad buy-in, from almost everyone except the most hardcore, deontological minarcho-capitalists and revolutionary socialists.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Agreed. I've always been a proponent of dual power reformation. We need to definitely move towards having more "commons" and less "Owned by PLC INC". That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned. But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        >That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?
  - loopdoend 13y ago
    If you remove the loaded language in "private residential property" and rephrase as simply "residence", i.e. your residence where you are living, then we aren't talking about property as a means of production, which is where the sticking point is. Your residence is your possession, and you have every right to privacy.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      That was my interpretation of what anoncowherd meant. To me, anarcho-capitalists are necessary for reformist action that can expand rights and fight coercion. Any arguments for the abolishment of wage slavery can and should be had, but lets not forget that we're able to discuss that issue, which seems to be the biggest sticking point between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists. That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6920011 for some clarification. In case it helps, consider the following two ways of thinking about land as property. 1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it. 2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be. I think both 1 and 2 make sense.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> No, property is defined by force. Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    >Or, it's defined by property rights? Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please. Oh, wait, it's your gun.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      Rights are an idea.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc. Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes. Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling. Taxes = Theft, Government = the Monopoly on Violence, and Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power. Your thoughts?
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> I don't think they understand that without individual freedoms reigning supreme, we'll have monopolies, lack of innovation, taxes, etc. Agreed. >> Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes Yep, it's about taxes in the sense that Tax Farms want to retain their cattle, so they make it difficult for the cattle to leave, while still maintaining an illusion of freedom. Even a complete sheep would realize he's a slave if he weren't free to leave "his" country. >> Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling. Mandatory collective schooling, but imposed on everyone by something else than the state? .. That doesn't sound right either. Anything that is based on aggressing against people is immoral. >> Taxes = Theft I'm fine with "robbery", "rape", and "theft" and so on. But extortion is more accurate. >> Government = the Monopoly on Violence Yes, and thoroughly immoral. >> Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power This is where we disagree, it seems. You seem to be referring to Crony-Capitalism, or "Crapitalism". Corporations buy State power and using it to their own benefit, and of course, that will continue for as long as there is power to be bought. If there's nothing to bribe, then you can't bribe. But in reality, Capitalism is just what people do in their pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges, contracts, agreements, and investments, etc. All backed by respect for property rights, of course. Without property rights, there would be just about no wealth in the world, because no one could expect to benefit from any value they might produce. The absence of coercion ~ a free market ~ freedom ~ Capitalism. They all go hand in hand.