Skip to main content

Commentaryism - Private Property =/= Force

This is actually the first of a few Youtube dumps on this topic because I'm in a proprietary mood. What follows is a comment thread from Youtube followed by a brief defence of private property by one Theresa Klein in a couple of Disqus comments on the website of an organisation called Demos.



Free-Market Communist commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  -  May 30, 2015

Private property is the initiation of force, not taxation.


Anthony Haller
Jul 28, 2015

+Free-Market Communist But is property itself a initiation of force?


Free-Market Communist
Jul 28, 2015

+Anthony Haller
Yes. If not, how do you plan on defending it?


Anthony Haller
Jul 29, 2015

+Free-Market Communist

noun, plural properties.
that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner:
They lost all their property in the fire.

goods, land, etc., considered as possessions:
The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.

a piece of land or real estate:
property on Main Street.

ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible:
to have property in land.

something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public:
The secret of the invention became common property.

an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing:
the chemical and physical properties of an element.


Free-Market Communist
Jul 29, 2015

+Anthony Haller Answer my question.


Anthony Haller
Jul 29, 2015

+Free-Market Communist
I will answer your question. Defending your property with force is necessary because one: you will have no where to live except on the street being a bum. Second: if you have a wife and child then it is your role to defend them from someone trying to STEAL away property you paid money for.    


Free-Market Communist
Aug 18, 2015

+Anthony Haller Necessity is irrelevant. My thesis was:

"Private property is the initiation of force, not taxation."


Anthony Haller
Aug 18, 2015

+Free-Market Communist
It is relevant.


Matthew John Hayden
Sep 21, 2015+

+Free-Market Communist

Private property in what? And owned by whom? I assume you mean in capital goods/means of production, and that the owners can be any human or group of humans claiming such ownership.

Communes are private owners in themselves since each commune is basically a territorial co-op/company.

When the proletariat of Commune A own a tract of land and all the buildings and infrastructure on it that means the proletariat of Commune B do not, and don't get a say in how it's used.

That exclusionary principle is private property. That is what it means, has always meant, and will always mean regardless of what ButterflyCaught900 says to the contrary.

So communes are initiating force... as is everyone that ever asserts exclusionary control over anything they give up time and effort to procure or produce if the thing procured or produced can be used in the production of other things.


Julker Ninesixteen
Sep 22, 2015

+Free-Market Communist Can I take your money? Or house? You will give it to me because if you resist you implode right? Give me your bank account information. Don't worry I know you will not defend it.



Theresa Klein
"When a person produces something himself out of some resource he is otherwise entitled to, a system that entitles other people to that product requires the use of agression to take that product from him. A system in which he himself is entitled to that product does not. The product stays with him sans aggression.

You can claim that the initial entitlement to resources requires aggression to enforce certain property rules, but you can't say that an entitlement to keep what you yourself produce does."

"For instance. Maybe I'm arbitrarily given a piece of wood. I make a spoon out of that wood. The spoon is physically in my possession, by virtue of the fact that I MADE IT. If you want to impose a property system in which I am not entitled to the spoon, you're going to have to physically assault me to take it out of my hand.
If you impose a property system in which I own the spoon, no physical assault is necessary."

In fact Theresa's argument holds just as much for land as long as the appropriator is not appropriating something already appropriated by somebody else.

Popular posts from this blog

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Why I Am Not a Historical Materialist

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.
At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.
Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.


Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.