Property Rights

[MAM]

I apologize if this is a repost, my keyboard freaked out on me while I was typing and the what I had typed disappeared, I don't know if this is the first or second post, I checked the forum and didn't see a post about this.

Anyway, recently I was reading through the Forum and I saw a post where Seth King asks if he should open the site to all anarchists. To my mind this action would be saying that our goals are similar enough to theirs to warrant working together and ignoring our differences. To my mind this simply isn't the case, property rights are fundamental.

Property Rights are derived from the right to life, and a failure to acknowledge them is a failure to be consistent with the non-aggression principle.

So my question is this, how fundamental are property rights?

PS: If I accidentally posted the first attempt to write this it would not be finnished, I was in the middle of a sentence when the error occurred, let me know and I will delete it, or just delete it. Anyway I look forward to your thoughts!

[Distruzio]

Read this .

[MAM]

Read this .

Interesting. So then would you agree with me when I say that the ancoms have a fundamental difference in their philosophy and that this makes working with them counterproductive?

[ff42]

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP"

Although Mr. Smith uses the word 'libertarian', I've been led to believe it is appropriate to use the word anarchist in the above.    Also, at the base, I find no difference between ZAP/NAP and property rights.  If I am wrong please correct me.     

[Distruzio]

Read this .

Interesting. So then would you agree with me when I say that the ancoms have a fundamental difference in their philosophy and that this makes working with them counterproductive?

I wouldn't say "counterproductive," I'd say that for them to work with us would be a performative contradiction on their part - not ours. We can't fall into the Objectivist ethical pitfall of advocating a vanguardist approach to property rights in which any violence against those who dismiss property rights is acceptable as it cannot genuinely be considered theft if no one owns anything exclusively. That is an inverse of Stalinism and Fascism that would ethically justify all the evils anti-capitalists accuse us of favoring.

I admit that such a position is tempting, but it is no less wrong. "Counterproductive" is, therefore, not the perspective I'd choose. I'd say that interactions with them would be the consistent position for us, even though they would disagree, as we hold property rights to be axiomatic - even among those who disagree, b/c to deny property rights is to affirm them.

If the AnCom wishes to be inconsistent, then we cannot inhibit that. We can only continue to act consistently in the hopes that he'd eventually see his failings and adjust his behavior/belief.

I do, however, believe that, b/c of their inconsistencies, violence between an AnCap and an AnCom community is inevitable.

[Distruzio]

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP"

Although Mr. Smith uses the word 'libertarian', I've been led to believe it is appropriate to use the word anarchist in the above.    Also, at the base, I find no difference between ZAP/NAP and property rights.  If I am wrong please correct me.     

Anarchism/Statism are political orientations. Libertarianism/Totalitarianism are ethical orientations. The anarchist is a libertarian even though some emphasize equality at the expense of liberty (the left-libertarians and left-anarchists) and other emphasize liberty at the expense of equality (the right-libertarians and right-anarchists). Therefore, anarchist is, in the instance of the quote above, quite synonymous with libertarian.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

If it was voluntary socialism, then I don't see equality as coming at the expense of liberty. I see them as complementary. You get equality and liberty at the expense of production.

[Distruzio]

If it was voluntary socialism, then I don't see equality as coming at the expense of liberty. I see them as complementary. You get equality and liberty at the expense of production.

Well, "voluntary" anti-state socialism is communism. Voluntary state socialism cannot exist so long as a state exists.

[MAM]

I'm not advocating preemptive action against them, it seems to me that would be similar in principle to "thought crime".

I'm not sure how one gets away with the calling themselves an anarchist if they don't acknowledge property rights. JustSayNoToStatism and I have discussed this before. I just don't see how one can go about denying the existence of property rights and do anything about that belief without initiating force.

If a socialist commune were to be formed somewhere when there was a dispute over property as enivitible would occur it would have to be resolved some how, and force would be leveled. Now if the persons involved in the dispute aggree to be bound by this "commitee" (who know what it will be but I'll call it a commitee for the sake of this discussion) that is one thing.

But let's say that an "ancom" says I don't believe in property rights and so I'm taking X, he  has initiated force, and is acting like a government. If a group of "ancoms" ignore someone's property rights then that is an initiation of force, and the government or State holds a monopoly on force. In this regard they are not like a government as they wouldn't hold a monopoly on this (at least a legitimate one, then again how is that different than a government?)  in any case one cannot hold the belief that property rights are wrong and do something about it without breaking the NAP.

Aiding people who believe this I see as counterproductive because at some point we are going to have to fight them, so why help them at all?

I don't think that Objectivists believe in preemptive measures against people who deny the existence of property rights. This statement reeks of falsehood, and seems to be approaching a straw man.

[Distruzio]

I'm not advocating preemptive action against them, it seems to me that would be similar in principle to "thought crime".

I'm not sure how one gets away with the calling themselves an anarchist if they don't acknowledge property rights. JustSayNoToStatism and I have discussed this before. I just don't see how one can go about denying the existence of property rights and do anything about that belief without initiating force.

If a socialist commune were to be formed somewhere when there was a dispute over property as enivitible would occur it would have to be resolved some how, and force would be leveled. Now if the persons involved in the dispute aggree to be bound by this "commitee" (who know what it will be but I'll call it a commitee for the sake of this discussion) that is one thing.

But let's say that an "ancom" says I don't believe in property rights and so I'm taking X, he  has initiated force, and is acting like a government. If a group of "ancoms" ignore someone's property rights then that is an initiation of force, and the government or State holds a monopoly on force. In this regard they are not like a government as they wouldn't hold a monopoly on this (at least a legitimate one, then again how is that different than a government?)  in any case one cannot hold the belief that property rights are wrong and do something about it without breaking the NAP.

Aiding people who believe this I see as counterproductive because at some point we are going to have to fight them, so why help them at all?

Oh I agree, completely.

I don't think that Objectivists believe in preemptive measures against people who deny the existence of property rights. This statement reeks of falsehood, and seems to be approaching a straw man.

It isn't. I've asked if that interpretation of Objectivism was correct of many Objectivists and they universally admitted that it was. Objectivism does seem to trend towards Capitalist vanguardism in that the coercive collectivist is perceived as advocating the initiation of violence against the capitalist and, therefore, violence against them could be seen as retaliatory. In this way, the Objectivist can legitimately support minarchic institutions such as Police, a Military, and the like. They hold the unregulated laissez faire market as a moral social good on its own merit and advocate a State, which is collectivized coercion itself, in order to perpetuate it.

They ARE capitalist vanguardists.

[MAM]

There is not difference between a political orientation and an ethical orientations. Politics is a sub discipline of ethics.

I'm still not convinced about Objectivists being Capitalist vanguards, granted I'm not an expert on Objectivism but it seems to me from what I've read of Objectivist literature that preemptive action like what you are describing goes against what an objectivist would consider ethical.

I myself have been greatly influenced by Rand, and that kind of thing is something I would never do. Though I'm not an Objectivist and haven't read all of Rand...

In any case I see the Objectivist philosophy to be similar to a religion in that like any philosophy it is subject to cherry picking, and ultimately it's followers are individuals and I doubt that all of them believe in preemptive action. I wouldn't be surprised if there are regional differences too, have you talked to these "Objectivists" in person or online? It just doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that Objectivism is talking about, in fact if what you say is true than that is a fundamental inconsistency and flaw in that philosophy (at least from what I've read of it's literature). I bet the place Rand would have talked about this is "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" and that is one of her works I haven't read. Anyway...

[Distruzio]

There is not difference between a political orientation and an ethical orientations. Politics is a sub discipline of ethics.

Well, true. What I mean is that an ethical orientation is that moral perspective by which you view your own actions and a political orientation is that moral perspective by which you carry out your actions. The anarchist is a libertarian. The statist is a totalitarian. The inverse of either cannot be true b/c the individual engaging in such behavior would be guilty of a performative contradiction and would find themselves quite confused and inconsistent.

For instance, were Obama to proclaim that he were a libertarian, he could not advocate the projection of military force anywhere the military is currently deployed. Were Obama a totalitarian, he could not advocate limitations on federal authority. He does neither. Why? B/c Obama is quite simply, a liberal totalitarian - as most Statists, especially in the United States, are.

There is a difference between the two. It is simply measured by degree.

I'm still not convinced about Objectivists being Capitalist vanguards

I'll write up a thread about it on NationStates in order to reach a wider audience - not all of which will be capitalists, anarchists, or even democratists. I'll link that thread here in this thread, so that you might watch it. Perhaps one of the active objectivists on that forum will succeed in correcting my approach?

granted I'm not an expert on Objectivism but it seems to me from what I've read of Objectivist literature that preemptive action like what you are describing goes against what an objectivist would consider ethical.

I'll draft an OP in the NationStates thread that supports my interpretation with citations and the like. Please, do look on and feel free to add any critiques you might have on this forum, assuming you do not wish to join NationStates. You'll find I'm very excited to consider my perspectives against those who may be more perceptive than myself - after all, if I'm wrong, I should be made aware of it!

I myself have been greatly influenced by Rand, and that kind of thing is something I would never do. Though I'm not an Objectivist and haven't read all of Rand...

I read her to counter Rothbard. For a short time, I considered becoming an Objectivist but the philosophy raised far too many alarms for me - the most important being her hatred of religion and her minarchism.

have you talked to these "Objectivists" in person or online?

Both. The most revealing interview was with the local Libertarian Party candidate for Senate, who is an Objectivist. He was trying to sway me away from my parliamentarian atheism (I will NOT vote as I do not believe democracy is what its supporters say it is, hence the "atheism") and asked why I abandoned Randian ethics. I mentioned the vanguardism, and defended it as I plan to in the NS thread, and he conceded that one could certainly see how Objectivism could become that, but assured me that the democratic process would inhibit that transition. My skepticism of democracy, and my knowledge of Fascism make me doubt his faith.... then again, perhaps I'm too pessimistic?

It just doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that Objectivism is talking about, in fact if what you say is true than that is a fundamental inconsistency and flaw in that philosophy (at least from what I've read of it's literature). I bet the place Rand would have talked about this is "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" and that is one of her works I haven't read. Anyway...

Capitalism the Unknown Ideal is, in fact, the book that lead me to that conclusion. It is a phenomenal book. You should read it if you favor Rand. Her logic is absolute and undeniable - if you take her axioms as she presents them, as they are.

[Distruzio]

That thread is here.