Daily Anarchist Forum
July 16, 2019, 02:23:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: What do we we mean when we say property?  (Read 9664 times)
AuNero
Newbie
*
Posts: 36



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2012, 08:20:05 AM »


Be careful with Proudhon.  He said "property is theft".  He is saying that it is theft if you deny another person its use.  But if that person is using it then he is stealing from you because both of you can't be using it at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!



Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2012, 01:30:36 PM »

I don't think one day, out of nowhere, some super-Einstein-level intellect said, "Golly, here's a new and wonderful invention I'm going to call 'Private Property' and here's how it's going to work..." It is my opinion that, all retroactive justifications aside, the idea 'Private Property', just like the idea 'money', came out of social interaction that just worked better than anything else.

We have formalized it, by generally accepting "original occupation" and "first use", but this is a recognition of what people were doing anyway, not an ordination of the One True Way By God.

I would have to agree with this.  Defining what property is may be difficult, but actually knowing what it is isn't hard at all, because it's all in how people have been using stuff anyway.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2012, 01:32:21 PM »


Oh, no!  You need to come back and pick up your trash!

 Tongue
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
acft
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2012, 12:42:00 PM »

I might release an article about this soon. Basically, property is a behavior. It is a positive claim and thus requires ascertain and defense. That's in in a nutshell.
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2012, 12:56:41 PM »

I will go through and read these posts after breakfast, but I skimmed through to make sure someone mentioned the very very very best book on this topic. I'd say the definitive one.

Boundaries of Order by Butler Shaffer.

http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Order-Large-Print-Edition/dp/1479207756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347472575&sr=8-1&keywords=boundaries+of+order

More comments coming. But seriously. This is the book and the guy.
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2012, 01:21:51 PM »

Skipped breakfast and just went for coffee because I was so excited by this. I'm super happy to see such a varied discussion on this topic. Especially what Hanzo and Bob and a couple others were saying.

I've gone the whole gamut, I started full-on marxist and now I'm what I call a post-anarchist. A Wolf Devoonian, and he would not be happy for that term to exist, so lets not use it.

Any of you who haven't read Boundaries of Order ought to. It will knock down some major assumptions you didn't know you had.

A mechanism I use to get rid of any leftover objective libertarian or Rothbardian Anarchism precepts is to ask if its magic. When something is "self-enforcing" or inherent or natural or god-given, "check your premises". Property is just stuff, there is no magic sigil on it saying it is mine or yours.

And law is actually already practiced this way for us plebeians. For those of us who can't afford awesome lawyers "possession is 9/10ths of the law." This can mean physical possession in a less efficient society like Mexico where squatters can claim ownership of your property if they've been there for a bit. Or "legal" possession in a more efficient society like the US. This is where civil court and torts come in. I get some flack from my Anarchist peers for being into law, but an anarchist society would have tons of room for private courts just because private property will never be objective or absolute so arbiters will always have a place.

Its awesome when you and I agree on which stuff you'll use and which stuff I'll use but that's mostly the end of it. Welcome to property "rights". Its pretty much the first House Rule.

Also, Proudhon is a tool. Just a shabby academic compared to some of the ancaps out there.  I know he was a precursor, but no one is linking Hamurabi.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2012, 01:49:57 PM »

I don't want to start drama so I'm not going to enter this debate, but if at least 6 ancaps say their fine with it I'll enter
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2012, 04:16:47 AM »

1!
Logged
Coltan L.
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2012, 04:17:39 AM »

I don't want to start drama so I'm not going to enter this debate, but if at least 6 ancaps say their fine with it I'll enter

Also, welcome back. Its been a bit.
Logged
David Giessel
Full Member
***
Posts: 230


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2012, 10:40:30 AM »

Jump on in.
Logged

"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." -Seraphim of Sarov

"There is no ideology. There is no guru. There is only us, and this, and the silence." -Mark Manson
Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria
Newbie
*
Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2012, 11:28:58 AM »

From my high tower built from the spines of factory workers, I say join us!
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2012, 01:12:57 PM »

Meh.  He may as well chime in.

Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2012, 11:42:59 PM »

BlackandGr9y, you are so close to libertarian breakthrough!

I went through the same stage a while back, when I realized my view of property and natural rights were all wrong. I didn't buy rothbard's natural rights explanation anymore. What I realized is that:

1.Natural rights do not exist (or the nonaggression axiom
2.Property is not objective. It is 100% man-made.

Property is just a means to an end. It is a means to a peaceful, productive society through division of labor. That is it. It is not magic, objective, inherit, or anything like that. Property allows for the division of labor.

We make the rules ourselves: don't harm me, respect my property, and I will do the same for you. Free market economics is about realizing that it is in your own best interest to not steal, kill etc.

This is where, I feel, Molyneux fails. It is not immoral to aggress others, if you can live with the consequences. Ethics are not universal, but they are social rules that we agree on for our own benefit.

I'm not against government because "taxation is theft!" or whatnot. I am simply for economic cooperation because it is beneficial for everyone in the medium-long run. Government is the opposite, and is the biggest cause in lower quality of life for most people in the short run, and everyone after that.
There is no emoticon for "happy cry."
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2012, 06:56:22 AM »

I don't want to start drama so I'm not going to enter this debate, but if at least 6 ancaps say their fine with it I'll enter

As long as you will back up your statements instead of copy/paste from elsewhere, go for it.  



BlackandGr9y, you are so close to libertarian breakthrough!

I went through the same stage a while back, when I realized my view of property and natural rights were all wrong. I didn't buy rothbard's natural rights explanation anymore. What I realized is that:

1.Natural rights do not exist (or the nonaggression axiom
2.Property is not objective. It is 100% man-made.

Property is just a means to an end. It is a means to a peaceful, productive society through division of labor. That is it. It is not magic, objective, inherit, or anything like that. Property allows for the division of labor.

We make the rules ourselves: don't harm me, respect my property, and I will do the same for you. Free market economics is about realizing that it is in your own best interest to not steal, kill etc.

This is where, I feel, Molyneux fails. It is not immoral to aggress others, if you can live with the consequences. Ethics are not universal, but they are social rules that we agree on for our own benefit.

I'm not against government because "taxation is theft!" or whatnot. I am simply for economic cooperation because it is beneficial for everyone in the medium-long run. Government is the opposite, and is the biggest cause in lower quality of life for most people in the short run, and everyone after that.
There is no emoticon for "happy cry."

Lets put that in the FAQ.

While I completely agree, I see a place for the moral argument simply because that is all some people will respond to.  I won't hold back from using the moral argument on someone I think will respond to it either. 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 07:16:00 AM by Syock » Logged

Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2012, 08:56:50 AM »

Utilitarian Free-Market Economics
by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/daily/2647
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!