Monday, August 30th, 2010
Anarchism and Property
A clarification and explaination extending on the last video.
Duration : 0:8:13
Topics: Anarchism |
Comments RSS
25 Comments on “Anarchism and Property”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@dubified89
If …
@dubified89
If the contract can be enforced i.e. the courts can rule u have 2 uphold the contract & the PDAs can track u down & force u back 2 work 4 ur master then yes its slavery even if it was voluntarily signed work after the signing is not voluntary.
Even if the will is inalienable according to ancap rights clearly aren’t(since the right to the product of your labor is alienable) so you wouldn’t be selling your will you’d be selling your right to be free from being forced to work.
Nah that’s also too …
Nah that’s also too extreme on the opposite spectrum IMO. I think there’s room for middle ground b/w absolute property and absolute collectivization that would maximize both freedom and justice which is why I like this video
I think you’re …
I think you’re reaching a bit there
If you sell …
If you sell yourself into slavery than it’s not really slavery unless economic conditions force you to. And the point of libertarian markets as opposed to state capitalism as I understand it is to eradicate monopolies and the system that supports them so that the economic conditions that coerce people into making such decisions are eliminated.
I thought social …
I thought social anarchists weren’t allowed to use the term lol
These vids are a …
These vids are a dead-on blueprint for anarchism imo.
sums offered so far …
sums offered so far. I feel the supposed “Uses” argument is made by people who (selfishly) posit a better use for a property that is not objective. It’s like saying I deserve this or that from so and so whom I don’t like because I want it. How does one arrive at such a conclusion anyways? Democratically? How fallible is that? This left-anarchism has so many flaws.
Who’s to say that …
Who’s to say that an anarchist world in practice doesn’t have a one-to-one relationship between “Use and Occupancy” and “Private Ownership”? Afterall, if someone values a product more than I do, they’re going to trade me for it something I value more. We both win and the system moves one step asymptotically closer to equilibrium. Even if it’s a case of a hoarder, he’s STILL using the property. Its mere existence provides the owner with positive feelings that he clearly values more than any
Put it another way: …
Put it another way: As moral beings on this planet we must take ownership and thereby responsibility for all of it. As moral beings we must be sensitive to the happiness of other beings we share the planet with in joint ownership, as well as our own.
But all this intellectualizing implies a top-down dynamic where the right instructions are handed down and everyone’s all right. Instead we should be supporting those at bottom so they aren’t so desperate. Anarchy will emerge naturally.
Not only is it ok …
Not only is it ok to own things, it is a moral necessity. If someone gives up their sense of self, they stop being a person, and become a tool for use by anybody. In other words, they become capable of anything, human or inhuman. So it is a moral imperative that such ‘people’ are owned by moral people for the good of other unwitting beings who might suffer at their wretched hands, beause if moral folk don’t get there first, fascism will.
Ownership means taking responsibility for them.
@sicktoaster
I see …
@sicktoaster
I see no reason why you can’t sell aspects of your body, or even enter into some sort of contract where you give someone the coercive right to direct your labor, as long as you are free to exit such a contract at any time. (if you can exit the contract at any time, it isn’t slavery)
I suppose it is the WILL that is inalienable, not the body. If I sell my blood to someone, I don’t think I am justified in demanding it back whenever.
@Masebrock
Can I …
@Masebrock
Can I “sell” my body and give someone a coercive right to direct its labor(sell myself into slavery)?
If the right to control your own body is inalienable and can not be transfered then the logical conclusion is that the right to control the energy you exert onto the natural world can not be transfered either(by selling it to a capitalist boss).
Not sure why so …
Not sure why so many negative marks for your comment. I guess people don’t like the thought of their toys being taken from them.
most of these …
most of these people have abandoned the idea of natural rights in favor of promoting an egoist system where they can conquer, own, and enslave the world with verbal, semantical, and definitive vomit.
people today …
people today understand the left/right spectrum. they also understand the private property end of this spectrum. what they don’t understand is the use and occupancy spectrum. georgism is the gateway to understanding that spectrum. therefore, georgism is the most important philosophy to pimp in order to increase generalized understanding of libertarianism and anarchism.
i would also argue …
i would also argue georgism is not theft but recognition that everyone has the right to an equal share of land and natural resources and using a utilitarian and libertarian viewpoint to secure those rights. anti-georgism is the theft. land is commongood and taking land for personal ownership is theft.
utilitarianism uses …
utilitarianism uses scientific method and takes into considerations realities of the existing world and nature of humans to be tribal or pack animals. there is nothing wrong with that reality and you have to take that into consideration. also, libertarianism is open to becoming abused with excessive capitalization, excessively growing the tribe or pack, to become as dangerous as any formal state.
you seem to apply …
you seem to apply with the model that the intersection is the correct application of anarchism and thus correct application to the real world. the real world is multi-dimensional so you would have to add the counter weights of libertarianism or secured rights and utilitarianism as a measure of correct application.
ah, you’re going …
ah, you’re going into geoism.
Maybe I should …
Maybe I should clarify: active use + legitimate acquisition (not stolen, wasn’t someone else’s personal property when used) = ownership. Theft, trespassing, are all examples of illegitimately acquisition of property. Property must be intended for active personal use, if it’s property stolen from someone else that immediately puts it into the category of impersonal(illegitimate) Property.
occupancy / active …
occupancy / active use = ownership.
You are a part of …
You are a part of nature, are you not? But do you not own yourself? Or is your body to be “shared” at the whims of others, regardless of your own “selfish” desires?
If we start with the precedent that you own your own body, then the logical conclusion is that you also own the energy you exert onto the natural world. If a part of your life was used to obtain a resource, then no one else has a right to that resource any more than they have a right to your body. Read John Locke, he can explain.
Nature is not …
Nature is not Property is a sharing exercise.
Ownership is an Arrogant, Selfish, Egoistical way to look at nature.
(cont) and two, …
(cont) and two, not only is it pointless to try and set some predetermined doctrine as to how things should work, but it also seems to go against the very principles of anarchism, such as direct action and freedom in general.
i dont get why …
i dont get why people are debating over how anarchism “should be” in regards to certain issues, such as ownership.
for one, we are just dealing in rhetoric, not practice. i think the debates would be solved (or never exist) if people who were actually going to create an anarchist society would just deal with these issues in whatever way came naturally, or however makes the most sense at that time. (continued)