Skip to main content

Commentaryism - Chomsky, Molyneux & Neofeudalism


Notes for a video about private property.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whiskeyhammer 90

AnCap is just neo-feudalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MillionthUsername

No, it isn't. You're a liar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

whiskeyhammer 90
+MillionthUsername

"I inherited this kingdom from my father, peasant, you're living on my private property. Go start your own kingdom if you don't like paying rent and fees as taxes. What's stopping you? And why do you complain about force? I have a right to defend MY PROPERTY, just because you were born in my kingdom doesn't mean you own it peasant. You're aggressing against MY PROPERTY!  RESPECT MUH PROPERTY RIGHTS!" - anarcho-fedoraism is just that.

No king ever homesteaded shit. If you think they did, you are not an attentive student of history. Not to mention it was kings and barons who created the English, German and Swiss commons that socialist anarchists worship so much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MillionthUsername
+whiskeyhammer 90

What the hell are you talking about??? I don't know what "anarcho-fedoraism" is. Do you? Did you just make up that term?

It wasn't really worth responding to the fedora comment.

I don't support the claims of kings, you moronic jackass, if that's what you're implying with this crap. If you cannot think and write coherently, then find something else to do.

Ad homs. Nice to point out that the claim of a King is made against pre-existing claims by other present owners (peasants, nobles, previous kings) but the language here is horrible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whiskeyhammer 90
+MillionthUsername

The concept is the same for both people in that circumstance.

"I don't support the claims of kings," then why do you support the claims of oligarchs?

Sophistry - employing aesthetic similarities between kings on the one hand and rich people / property owners on the other in the absence of any thematic similarity whatsoever. 

Also does the term 'oligarch' refer to;
a. the beneficiaries of the state giveaways in Russia in 1992
b. anybody who happens to be rich
c. wealthy criminals
d. the rulers in an actual oligarchy? Very unclear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MillionthUsername
+whiskeyhammer 90

I don't know what the hell you are talking about or how it relates to me. Please explain yourself clearly. Make a claim and then defend it.

Who are "both people in that circumstance"? What are you trying to say? Why are you saying that I support the claims of oligarchs? What claims do I support of which people that you call "oligarchs," and how did you come to know this? Are you a mind-reader? If so, you suck at it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whiskeyhammer 90
+MillionthUsername

The landowners would make the same argument as the king in that scenario.

Peaceful versus non-peaceful acquisition. Acquisition through original appropriation, gift and trade is peaceful. Taking what somebody else acquired without their permission is not. It's that simple, really.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MillionthUsername

It seems you are trying to equate kings with legitimate landowners. If so, that is false and absurd.

Kings acquire land through conquest, force, intimidation, etc. Legitimate land claims don't involve stealing or conquest of the previous owner. Do you understand the difference between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445

The idea of a legitimate land owner ignores class privilege.

It was a king and privileged class who created the commons and enforced their continued existence against the wishes of peasants who kept trying to homestead and privately claim their land so they could better use it, and later on it was a Parliament who enclosed the commons by respecting the personal claims of people connected to them while not respecting the claims of people without such connections.

Think of someone who purchased a house that was slightly double the income versus those who are priced out of the housing market. Even if the state was to be dismantled, land is still going to be unfairly distributed.

That is a matter of excludability of space and matter, and therefore nature, not of evil conspiracies against all those helpless poor people.

Remove the state and those who are wealthy now ( thanks to the dynamic state sector) will purchase strategic land. This is what we see in anarcho-capitalist societies such as Somalia and South Sudan.

Somalia has not been subject to any frantic land grabs since the dissolution of the departure of UN forces in 1995.

That is why the concept of private property is outright problematic.

Private property has been the default of every civilisation to ever exist; in fact it's a prerequisite of large-scale farming, fishing, forestry and urban development - hence the 100% non-existence of attested urban civilisations without private property.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whiskeyhammer 90
+Whoknows1445

"problematic" I want to call you a faggot, but you're right.

+MillionthUsername

Land belongs to those who can take and hold it. Assuming that goes away because of the state being removed is moronic.

Those who can take it peacefully. The only other possibility is that the victim of a land-theft chooses not to report it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.

First we must decide whether or not property exists at all. I believe it stems from self-ownership and therefore does exist.

 Vague. Way too vague.

From there we can conclude that there is legitimately obtained property and illegitimate property. If you use force or steal then that property is illegitimate. If it was traded for or gifted or created then it is legitimate. A king does none of these things and is therefore not a legitimate owner of any land he claims. This is why propaganda and force is required to keep it. A land owner has either traded or homesteaded to obtain property. There was no force involved. I don't see how you view this as the same as a king. Since property does exist, telling someone to get off your land is the same as telling someone to stop poking you with their finger.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
whiskeyhammer 90
+Bryce S.

I'm not a leftist but AnCaps fall into the same pit as their leftist anarchist adversaries. Land belongs to who can take it and keep it.

For the second time; those who can take it peacefully. The only other possibility is that the victim of a land-theft chooses not to report it.

The erosion of a state would essentially make everyone without capital subservient to anyone with it more directly than the neo-bourgeois aristocracy we have now.

What aristocracy? The number of discrete plots of land with distinct and separate owners has only gone up since the last of the Inclosure Acts;

Why would anyone be subserviant to anyone else? Appeals to Marxian econ all fail cos Marxism rests on a metaphysical anti-epistemology, a fallacy of reification, and a non sequitur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

I don't agree with the concept of self-ownership. It seems to rely heavily on dualism. We cannot own ourselves because there is no acquisition process. Even a child who owns a toy has acquired it with intent to keep it as their possession. In other words, s/he has claimed ownership of the toy.

You claim yourself by growing into yourself as a self-controller. You are your body's boss. This also does not contradict the statement 'you are your body' cos you can't control anything the way you can control your body.

Thus no appeal to dualism is required as what self-ownership really means is responsibility for the consequences in the external world of one's actions, making self-ownership largely synonymous with moral agency.

Moreover, I am really disturbed by the motivations behind the self-ownership principle. It's essentially justifying capitalist exploitation. This goes beyond wage slavery but outright slavery that we see in nations blessed with Austrian "shock therapy". I think this is an issue of being too theoretical for our own good. 

I'm lost as to what the point of all this is.

Since capitalist exploitation refers to exploitation under any wage system and relies upon metaphyical anti-epistemologies. no dice there.

I have no idea what "Austrian shock therapy" is.

Too theoretical? Why?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
His Most Gracious Excellency Saxo Ungrammaticus I
+Bryce S.

There is no such thing as legitimate landownership, by owning land you are denying others the opportunity to own land, the only possible way you can own land is either by having a large retinue of private force or by using the force of the state to ensure that land is protected and inheritable.

Legitimacy is, like all value, in the eyes of the beholder, so no meaningful criticism will be found here.

Denying others access to something is not in itself a bad thing, otherwise me denying others access to my body, to the strip farm with which I feed myself, etc, is bad.

Time to grow up.

How can you ever legitimately own a piece of earth without force (at some point that land would have come into someone's possession by seizure; either your actual ancestors or those who used to own that land which eventually came to you via more legitimate means). Claiming ownership of the earth's resources without caveat is theft.

Why is it theft?

 Does somebody else have a claim on a piece of unused land before a person or group shows up and starts using it?

Obvious not as no mechanism by which to claim exists. Society or the collective are just meta-data constructed by our own thoughts, they are just ideas, and therefore enjoy no autonomous authority to claim so much as an inch of topsoil.

To say they can is imbuing concepts, ideas and fictions with personalities in the real world; this is the fallacy of reification.

If the state or society is to agree to property rights, society must have some compensation for the resources which have been claimed (however small).

See above. Society doesn't exist to be harmed.

Feudalism developed during the erosion of sophisticated state structures as a result of the collapse of the Western Roman empire, in the gradually developing vacuum (caused by the decay of the state) those who were able warriors with large retinues became the only source of power and organisation left.

I think I pretty much agree with this, though it is modern states, not private property rights, that are today's chief inheritance from the bellatores of the post-Roman age.

I think it be too drastic now to destroy individual property rights and land ownership (to be replaced by common ownership) and also running too much against the nature of mankind. Consequently we must fall back on compensation (in the form of the least personable property: monetary wealth). But who is to decide on the compensation? Educated propertied men: too selfish (with an obvious stake in the game). The people: too stupid and short-termist. God: non-existent or at least very inaccessible or uninterested. Philosopher kings: impossible and almost an oxymoron (but desirable theoretically). We must therefore resort to a mixed constitution (with slightly more democratic elements) in order to decrease the concentration of wealth and the level of poverty in our societies.

Since no justification has been offered for this prescription; no. That's literally as much rigour as my response needs.

First step is to take away the egregious role of money in politics and the cosy relationship between those with political power and those with economic power. Second step encourage through philosophy and education and ideology which is less focused on the ego and consumption. Finally point out the stupidity of most people to ensure that the democratic ideology we have today does not get out of hand. Sorry for the extremely long comment you are welcome to ignore it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.
+Saxo Ungrammaticus

land ownership like other property does not have to be obtained by force. In fact, any land ownership obtained through force is NOT considered legitimate by a free society, in the same way society does not accept stealing as a legitimate form of obtaining property. So how do you obtain property without force? Through homesteading, gifting, and free trade. None of these involve forcefully taking anything. And all of these have existed before through common law outside of the state.

Playing into Saxo's hands. Alas I think Bryce might be a Stefan Molyneux devotee.

Feudalism is dependent on the use of force, which is why it is not comparable. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

"Through homesteading, gifting, and free trade. None of these involve forcefully taking anything. And all of these have existed before through common law outside of the state. "

This sounds awfully simplistic. Homesteading in the US was made possible via the redistribution of indigenous land. Homestead was encouraged to speed up settlement of the Canadian prairie's and in the US, it was done to build independent farmers.

Not that I am a homestead principle guy, but that's not the homestead principle. This is like me saying national socialism in Germany is socialism cos the word is in the name.

I see a lot of government force there but nothing resembling equity. It's usually these reactionary type of land reforms that tend to result in the concentration of wealth. We saw this in the Stolypin reform which ended up doing the same thing.

Not sure what is supposed to be egregious about land reform when the the previously existing system is politically enforced anyway.

The Stolypin reforms simply freed peasants to buy and sell land - that was the only difference - so the reforms expanded the peasants' private control over their own land.

In other words the Stolypin reforms actually saw outside control of how peasants employed their land decrease overwhelmingly;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolypin_reform

As for gifting, I have no idea how thieves could "gift" land in a free manner. This to me sounds like a bunch of catchphrases instead. It is "free" because anarcho-capitalist says it "free". I mean, let's just ignore the coercion that made the current distribution of resources possible. It's like the Dawes Act all over again.  

Respecting peaceful claims is free and peaceful, and this is what ancaps advocate.

There was no thievery because there was nobody to thieve from. That's it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.
+whoknows1445

The homestead Act is not what I am referring to. I am referring to homesteading as a practice through common law outside of the state. That which you create is yours. Same as with a book.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

That sounds awfully theoretical. How is critical resources going to be distributed in a manner where it doesn't translate to capital concentration? It's not like land and violence wasn't somewhat concentrated before Somalia became stateless.

Well, no private property money-equipped society has to date ever produced capital concentration over time; there are literally zero examples. In fact capital has become more and more diffuse.

But even if it hadn't, it doesn't confer power over others anyway, so that's the end of that;
http://ecomonyblogtime.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/more-freedom-more-jobs.html
http://ecomonyblogtime.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/labour-market-monopsony.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.
+Whoknows1445

Somalia is still ran by warlords. Anarchy and libertarian philosophy is centered around no rulers. Somalia has no government, but they have rulers.

Actually Somalia has 3 governments.

Somali Federal Government;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somalia
Somaliland;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Somaliland
Puntland;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland#Politics

Critical resources are distributed in the most efficient and optimal way in a free market. Because of prices, supply, and demand, resources are allocated properly. Mises called the misallocation of resources which are inevitable in socialistic economies the economic Calculation Problem.

Prices arrived at by human interactions over time give rise to prices of goods and services which represent the relative scarcity of those goods and services.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

"Somalia is still ran by warlords. Anarchy and libertarian philosophy is centered around no rulers. Somalia has no government, but they have rulers."

US and most other nations are still controlled by concentrated wealth. When looking at resource distribution today, I don't see much potential of "free" movement here.

Wealth equals political power? I beg to differ. See QA_07.

"Critical resources are distributed in the most efficient and optimal way in a free market. Because of prices, supply, and demand, resources are allocated properly. Mises called the misallocation of resources which are inevitable in socialistic economies the economic Calculation Problem."

Mises simplified the problem. Free markets via a system of pure competition is just going to lead to the eventual concentration of capital. That is because under a profit-motivated game, sustainable distribution isn't what is produced. That is why even most capitalist economists believe in a command economy that has strong anti-trust regulations. It's not that monopolies are bad, but when ill-regulated, we see them utilise resources in a terrible manner.

Sadly every factual statement here is wrong.

Simplification - Mises was addressing the calculations humans make by using prices to determine what they will have to forego in order to acquire a given good or service.

Without money prices that calculation becomes considerably harder, and so forward planning, capital and labour allocation become harder, and allocative efficiency declines.

Capital concentration - nope.

Sustainable distribution - I have no idea what this means. What exactly is sustainable distribution? Is this a jab concerning inequality?

Free-market monopoly - has never happened. And by that I mean that it is completely unattested.

This has been seen throughout history where expansionist farmers purchase competitors and intentionally destroy supply. After all, this isn't much different to what occurred during the collapse of Britain's manorial system. Land ownership became even more concentrated after this shift from feudalism. It's no surprise that the British when colonising India, etc, they began to intentionally dismantle their highly productive textile industry! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.
+Whoknows1445

So what you have to do is explain to me how a free market, in which there are no corporations, tariffs, licensing laws etc., would produce a sustainable monopoly.

It simply would not, as explained a tiny bit more below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

No, it will create a concentration of wealth. Monopolies are really just government mandates. Nevertheless due to the profit motive, capital tends to take a centralisation route. We saw this with every land re-distributive scheme. 

Free-market monopolies, oligopolies & cartels are completely unattested in all of human history as yet.

What capital centralisation is Whoknows1445 referring to? The exact opposite has happened over the last 200 years.

What land redistribution schemes? What centralisation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bryce S.
+Whoknows1445

Okay, so you agree monopolies require governments to be sustainable. So then my next question, is how will wealth accumulate? Of course there will be inequalities, but the reason almost all of the "1%" today have their wealth is through use of the state to gain advantage. A free market consists of numerous businesses all competing to provide people their wants and needs. The only way a business owner can make profits is by giving people what they want or need. This is mutually beneficial.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+Bryce S.

Don't bother.

Unless you're going to offer a treatise every time you talk to people who disagree with you ( non-violently right, non ancaps? ) there's no point wasting your time.

Good advice for me to take, huh?

When people are speaking un-economics ( that is the subject in which my training lies ) they are un-ready to listen.

Let me lay the un-econ on yo asses! This was a very badly constructed sentence and I'm pleasantly surprised that nobody afterward gave me the chastisement I deserved.

To the ansocs, ancoms, and ansyns... when is it OK to violently attack others?

Naturally butterflycaught900 will try to weasal out a load of nonsense about how defence of one's claim to stuff is somehow aggressive despite the intrusion being aggression if one is a NAPper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

His Most Gracious Excellency Saxo Ungrammaticus I
Apr 19, 2015

+Bryce S. Property is merely a social convention, there is no property outside human society and neither has there been property in every human society; if you want to have property either you have to use force to keep it or make everyone else believe that in some ways it benefits everyone to live in a society where people are safe to keep property. Say if you were in a field and picked up some gold and said it was yours to keep forever and no one could ever have it; you did not use force to seize it and yet you would have to use force to keep it, or else say 'finders keepers' or 'god said I could have this piece of gold because I was the first one here'; the wiser man would of course say 'you may be jealous of me now but wait until you find other fields where there is much gold, then you all may each have your share of gold (however small) and want to have a right to keep it as it will be to your advantage'. Of course this man would be the first lawgiver and thus Government would be established. So you can see that property cannot exist without laws which in the end cannot exist adequately (so long as humans remain rebellious) without force. And with force must come supreme justification. So the justification for unlimited property rights must be your second point which is that it is beneficial to human happiness and progress, never having the danger of leading to unfair monopolies so long as an overbearing State is not in place to support this (I defer of course to your superior economic knowledge). Yet there is still no justification to property outside this, all else is 'finders keepers' nonsense or 'god told me I could have this piece of land' or 'I'm going to keep this land because I am strong enough and have an army of retainers'. If it is proven by rational debate however (among experts in economics with examples from history) that unlimited property rights is counter to human happiness and progress leading to large concentrations of wealth than we must turn to redistribution or property held in common (I would prefer the former). In fact I would actually prefer a system of limited/local government (as I admire Jefferson and do not care for bureaucracies). However it is not immoral to tax in the same way as it is not immoral to keep property so long as there is good enough justification for them. I often hear from libertarians (or whatever people wish to be called) that tax is immoral; this is what I have wished to argue against.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Bryce S.

Remember, the state arose out of the free market. Capitalism has a tendency to counteract capital formation. For that reason, I expect a free market society to simply revert into a state-like arrangement but one where capital is highly concentrated.

Libertarians of Europe that were opposed to private property understood this quite well. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+Whoknows1445

Hello. The biggest anarchies I'm aware of - friendship and family formation, career choice, purchasing choice, international relations, academia - have not led to any such mega-concentration whatsoever.

What's the mechanism of injury here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Matthew Hayden

How in the world are career choices and purchasing choice anarchic? There is a lot of capital concentration involved in those examples. Maybe if you don't look at it at a systems level.

If this is a way of saying that one can only choose from the options available, and one did not get to decide previously which options were to be available, sure, but then reality itself is preventing anarchy. Whoops.

To simply brand everything "free" as progressive is really simplistic. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+Whoknows1445

cos they're up to you as an individual to choose, with only scarcity as a limiting factor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Matthew Hayden We're social animals and are better studied under system. This is quite reinforced if you look at evolutionary biology and psychological. One can't just isolate individual decision-making, we tend to follow crowds, we influence and are influenced. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew John Hayden
+Whoknows1445

Every social connection you have is a subjective feeling and idea inside your head.

If you're lucky, the people you have connections to feel connected to you too.

This was my point. I was not saying people don't influence each other or that such influences are not significant in people's ultimate choices.

Nevertheless, the calculus of choice itself operates at the level of the individual even when coerced, because one either goes along with the coercion or refuses and faces whatever they were being threatened with.

So strictly speaking I'm not disagreeing with you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Matthew Hayden

I am not even sure if it's a good idea to develop a philosophy via an idealistic view of "free" choice. Yes, humans systems involve individual choices but they're hardly isolated. We don't really possess the machinery to be atomised creatures and this explains why culture and indoctrination is a significant part of the human experience.

Yet the biggest question in philosophy is whether other minds exist, and society as a mind definitively does not. Asserting that it does is an example of an anti-epistemology.

Yes, even an anarcho-capitalist framework is going to require a significant amount of indoctrination. Otherwise, I can see terrible outcomes being produced. We already see it in much of the third world where statelessness is quite normal. People will even sell children in these settings. 

Don't attack people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+Whoknows1445

What you're calling indoctrination I might be inclined to call biology, but we agree on culture. That is of course, if you mean that families and trade and private property are things that must be indoctrinated. Since my not-quite-two nieces are getting their heads around ownership already I find that doubtful. I suspect the biological constitution of human brains and behaviour triggers wires us for building dominions of material things to rule over, and that the great lie of the political means is an extension of such domination over other humans as well. All politics is an exercise in treating other humans as your property.


---------------------------
"We already see it in much of the third world where statelessness is quite normal."

I beg to differ. With the exceptions of Haiti, Botswana, and Somalia, most poor countries have large governments, especially in North Africa, the Middle-East, and Latin America.

Haiti is an example of a state where, instead of formal taxation and regulations, government agents and their friends nakedly attack people who visibly amass wealth and just openly steal it, disincentivising investment and explaining how the country is still so poor.

Botswana has a small government and is flourishing, where the nigh omnipotent state in neighbouring Zimbabwe continues in its campaign to bring socialism to the people via hyperinflation and land grabs from anyone guilty of being wealthy, or white.


---------------------------
"People will even sell children in these settings."

This speaks to desperation brought on by poverty and is outside the realm of political philosophy.

I am, however, in favour of birth parents being allowed to sell the right to raise their children (giving up that right themselves in the process) to others who would become adoptive parents. Many a childless middle-class housewife/househusband might appreciate the chance to pay paupers who can't afford their baby's upkeep to adopt the baby...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

His Most Gracious Excellency Saxo Ungrammaticus I
+Matthew Hayden

What is for you the moral basis of private property?

Oh dear. My answer has changed since I answered this guy. Now my nswer is, simply, it better reflects cause and effect, the who what where when principle, and human agency in making agreements.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryce S.
Apr 27, 2015

+Saxo Ungrammaticus Private Property is not based on morality. It is based on the universal truth of self-ownership. You own your body, your ideas, your actions, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew John Hayden
Apr 28, 2015

Yo +Saxo Ungrammaticus !

Now, I base morality on the universal truth of human self-ownership which cannot be refuted without committing a performative contradiction.

Alas, this is not strictly true in the way deontologists use it, but the collection of words above just barely holds water when one's ethics is purely descriptive. Still, a bad start.

Private property is a right that people afford each other in recognition of each other's self-ownership.

That paragraph above does not hold true in cultures that ingrain common property arrangements such as those tribes identified by David Graeber. But since those tribes are still pre-civilised now, in 2015, I think that's all the debunking that common property needs as a means to attain peace and prosperity.

Piaroa.
Merina.
Tiv.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Matthew John Hayden

Suppose I walk on to some piece of ground that a libertarian claims ownership over. Suppose I contend that people cannot own pieces of ground because nobody makes them. In my walking on the ground, I do not touch the libertarian or threaten to touch him in any way.

Either bc900 is making his/her own claim to the land (s)he is standing on or is - true to his/her word - claiming to represent the prior authority of the megamind that is the collective, or society as a whole.

Obviously society has no cognition or capacity to act in the world prior to the capacities of the individuals who make it up. To suggest otherwise is the fallacy of reification.

If a dispute arises between a property owner and a walking anti-propertarian then either;
a. Proper can use force against Walker first.
b. Walker can use force against Proper first.
c. Neither can use force against the other.

Nonetheless, the libertarian proceeds to initiate force against me or calls the police to get them to initiate force against me.

Once viewed as in the 3 scenarios just above the question of the correctness of forcefully defending private property basically answers itself.

Libertarians are fine doing this and therefore libertarians are huge fans of initiating force. The initiation of force or the threat to initiate force is the mechanism that underlies all private property claims.

In a sense this holds, but if the threat to initiate force underlies all property claims & you find this unacceptable then you are in favour of no property claims at all, and prefer attack outright to violence in defence, that is, scenario b above, since scenario c is an absurdity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+butterflycaught900

That does happen in parts of the world where foraging communities still exist.

For instance, the Jarawa people found in the Andaman Islands will take ( or steal) goods in urban centres but those cultures don't have a concept of private property. Everything is common property and abundance is something that'd be shared. 

Per all available evidence and sensible econ theories the 'abundance' would never be created in the first place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Whoknows1445

Point being, it's clear that when the libertarians talk about not initiating force, they are using the word "initiation" in a very idiosyncratic way. They have packed into the word "initiation" their entire theory of who is entitled to what. What they actually mean by "initiation of force" is not some neutral notion of hauling off and physically attacking someone. Instead, the phrase "initiation of force" simply means "acting in a way that is inconsistent with the libertarian theory of entitlement, whether using force or not." And then "defensive force" simply means "violently attacking people in a way that is consistent with the libertarian theory of entitlement."

Matt Bruenig?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+butterflycaught900

Well, yes. The libertarian position would require some sort of indoctrination. Seeing that we live in an urbanised society, taking from one's possession would definitely be considered an initiation of force.

On the other hand, taxing one to fund various welfare schemes ( corporate, single mother, etc) would not be considered forceful. It sure is appropriation ( tax evading is illegal) but in our capitalist system, those who can make money work for them are usually always heavily incentivised.

That's because this enterprising class saves up, invests in the agriculture, the housing, and other technologies that we take for granted. I mean look at Google, they're so productive that they don't even pay much taxes. This is not surprising considering they offer more to society than virtually anyone else.

Nevertheless, I do think that this really a battle of ideologies. The libertarian approach does seem highly dynamic within a capitalist format. If I didn't have to pay as much taxes, I'd further increase my saving rates. That would enable me to invest in the future. If land-use wasn't so heavily regulated, I could even rent out a section of my home and open up a grocery store. If land available wasn't so restricted, we could essentially have a house for all. The free market approach, in our society, can work quite wonderfully and YouTube is a great example of that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Whoknows1445

On the ethics of taxation, it can’t be discussed in abstraction from some postulated socio-economic system.

If taxation is the mandatory extraction of stuff from people to a sub group of these people who enjoy the right to employ forceful means to extract the stuff then if you consider force to be immoral then taxation is immoral.

There are of course arguments against particular forms of taxation, such as the kind that are at the core of our economic system, where the public invests (through taxes) in developing the basic elements of the advanced economy (like what we’re now using, computers and the internet), but gets none of the profit when what the public has created often over decades is handed over to private power for marketing and profit.

Doublespeak - also fawning toward Keynesian statism - negating anarchism - as cause of modern use of computers (it isn't) or of developing them in the first place (it didn't) so I should address Mazzucato's bullshit here.

The development and initial rollout of transistors was for civilian transistor radios. No government funding was required.

Also, pointing a finger and saying that vacuum-tube super-computers were state funded doesn't magically make the state funding necessary for computers to be invented, made affordable and mass-produced.

"If I didn't have to pay as much taxes, I'd further increase my saving rates. That would enable me to invest in the future."

You're not looking at the complete equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.

This is correct insofar as one has to purchase a formerly government-provided service if one wants to use that service.

So what?

(2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.

In the long term yes. Not in the short term. Rather in the short term only the economics of payrolls have changed because employers only have to pay employees themselves, they don't have to pay payroll taxes or social security / national insurance.

This makes the same job with the same wages much cheaper for an employer to offer, making unemployment far less likely as casually entering or leaving employment becomes.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+butterflycaught900

HOWDY! Sorry for going silent. My G+ account isn't telling me when people message me. This has happened with a lot of users messaging me lately, and I don't know why.

 :(

"Suppose I walk on to some piece of ground that a libertarian claims ownership over. Suppose I contend that people cannot own pieces of ground because nobody makes them. In my walking on the ground, I do not touch the libertarian or threaten to touch him in any way. Nonetheless, the libertarian proceeds to initiate force against me or calls the police to get them to initiate force against me. Libertarians are fine doing this and therefore libertarians are huge fans of initiating force. The initiation of force or the threat to initiate force is the mechanism that underlies all private property claims."

OK. So you're into public-property, rather than private-property-but-only-if-held-by-the-communes-themselves, am I right? The latter seems the usual interpretation of 'common property'. Anwyay! On to the adventure...

The one big weakness of this comment of mine is that I do not concisely demonstrate the difference between defence of property versus attack on a property owner to satisfactorily make the case that the private owner - whether an individual or a group - can physically get the invader off their land because the only alternatives are that the invader gets to decide and push the owner aside, neither can and they stare at each other forever, or both can and outright disorder is our goal.

I also don't give a neat summary of the basic nature of experienced everyday reality versus needs & wants followed by some detail about scarcity, private property, and the nature of the real commons as a government-created playground for the rich and as a social control system to keep the peasants from rebelling too often.



---------------------------
HUMAN ACTIONS EXIST IN TIME

This is critically important. I took possession of the land chronologically prior to your rambling trip.

The universe is 'first come, first served' I'm afraid. For it to be otherwise we would all have to be everywhere all the time.

Since time as we experience it (I grant you, time probably doesn't exist as an objective property of the universe) places our actions in a chronological order it pays to give some attention to when actions have been taken.

Me claiming to you that I've bought your house and pushing you aside without warning, when you have previously bought it and not sold it, is clearly a trespass / invasion.



---------------------------
IF I DO SOMETHING WITHOUT YOU, YOU DIDN'T ALSO DO IT

I gave up something for the land, or somebody else chose to give the land up to me. I have acted peacefully to acquire it.

You haven't taken any such action. By very definition you have not earned the right to use it, whereas I have.

Therefore I, the farmer/developer/landlord/home-owner/whatever, get to decide what to do with this patch of Earth, and you, the person who did not endeavour to peacefully acquire it, do not, unless I say you do.

Maybe you think this is oppressive because you think one person will buy every house in the world, or something... the cost of doing so is greater than the bargaining power of all the money/precious metals presently in existence... and even acquiring all of those monies is an insane ask.



---------------------------
TRESPASS / INVASION

Invasion means the occupancy by one person or group over the non-human possessions that other persons have previously & peacefully claimed...

If you are on my land, say in my field, you are perfectly entitled to remain alive according to liberal ethics, but you should try to justify yourself to me, since I am on the hook for how the land is used - I benefit from sound management and suffer from poor since I gave up resources to attain it peacefully.

Resources I will not magically get back when you enter my land. Is this why you entertain the notions you do? Do you think resources are infinitely available to all in 2015? I digress...

No I do not have the right to shoot you for merely being there - you are not a pest or vermin, but a fellow moral agent, and moral agents should not die just because they've suffered a lapse of understanding of cause and effect.

Or, if you were sound of mind and body but didn't know I owned the land, you'd be quite within your rights to approach me and ask what the deal is.

But if you decide you have a better idea for how to treat a patch of my land and try to implement your plan without my permission, then I have every right to evict you by whatever means since you're redirecting the use of resources I have previously claimed and you have not previously claimed.

In this example I've previously grabbed the land through gift or trade ( homesteading hypotheticals are pointless in 2015 unless we talk about land owned by a royal family or a government ) but there is land on this Earth that I don't own, right next door.

And you know what, you can also trade me something in exchange for some of my land if I consent to the exchange.

In the real world people treat what is 'theirs' with far more respect than what is not. And where too many different people are sharing in the ownership of something - say a government road - we can enjoy such problems of the commons as:

Urban bridge and tunnel tolls that don't adjust to traffic conditions to financially dis-incentivise the kind of road-use choices that lead to gridlock.

Deforestation, or fish-stock depletion, or public lavatories that look vaguely like torture chambers, and so on. Concerning deforestation, when a logging firm owns the land it's logging, it does so sustainably. The one example I have immediately to hand is Weyerhauser;
http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser

But back to invasion; in real life, farmers and other landowners simply agree access rights, such as my friend's father whose land surrounds a separate plot that is dependent upon the big plot's driveway. Somehow folks don't come to blows over stuff like this...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.1385408,-5.1345077,309m/data=!3m1!1e3
That East-West tree-lined road is the main driveway, and then it loops south round the small parcel of land to my bud's house and adjoining tenants. Note that the mansion the road loops around is completely reliant on my friend's father's drive.

Your worldview ignores the significance of human agency and the chronology of that agency. When you claim something that someone else has already claimed without their permission you're stealing the thing/place/stuff itself, but also the time and effort they put into acquiring it.

Should have pointed out that the alternative, that an all-encompassing global 'collective' cannot make such a claim for self-evident reasons - the collective doesn't exist, it's just a concept, and so cannot assert any kind of rights prior to assertions by the individuals that make it up.

If we were talking about labour exploitation you'd be all fire and brimstone on this exact point, railing about how workers are literally robbed by their employers since the employers get to own and dispose of the product of the workers' labour...

P.S

I don't want to have to draw pictures of everything I'm trying to argue to, for example, explain the difference between Person A's power over their own land versus Person A's power over Person B's land...

Note that hereafter the points in this comment are never addressed by anybody else. The commies in this comment thread wanna live without any surety in things other than their own skins. Presumably they'd consider clothes private property, but who knows.

Turns out this comment has been deleted by Right-Libertarianism Exposed, the user who posted the video. I honestly don't know why.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+butterflycaught900​

I barely purchase services from the government. I pay a massive healthcare levy and am part of the private system.

I walk and cycle exclusively and hardly use the road network.

I also paid for education with cash to boot.

Personally, I get more from the private monopolies and nothing from single mother handouts. That is outside of their children breaking into one of my homes. I am certainly not opposed to the state ( i.e. Science finding, investment in industry, the dynamic state sector, etc) but get that matriarchal bullshit out of here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Whoknows1445

matriarchal bullshit? what are you talking about?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+butterflycaught900

Let's see, alimony/ child support ( how many, including men who didn't want a child, are in jail due to that?), general welfare schemes proscribed to single mothers.

Irrelevant drivel.

I don't even care about the corporate handouts considering that I am using tax-evading YouTube extensively in addition to many private-only monopolies to build my home, travel, and the rest. Hell, I've always worked in the private sector.

More drivel.

Seeing that this left-right dichotomy is extreme, I'm prepared to vote for the free market. Let's get the government out of family and at the bare minimum restrict their presence to basic science and research. It is actually impressive that digital computers and the internet primarily emerged out of defence funding so I'd keep it at that.

Government versus private science?

I'm willing to assume that you're invested in the liberal side of the spectrum so it's definitely going to be agree-to-disagree situation. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden

Per my previous comment - I forgot to mention that nature doesn't create fields, roads, buildings, fences, drains ( no snide BS about rivers here, please ), latrines, parking lots or parks. Rather, human agency does...

So any land you walk on that somebody else has already claimed has likely already been put to use by them. Indeed if we look around us at the world today it all has been (in the UK & US certainly), with possible exceptions for government-claimed plots like the land around military bases, old nuclear test sites and the forests and mountain ranges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Matthew John Hayden

Private property has a specific meaning which is a title in real property (e.g. fee simple); as do factors of production, labor, land, and capital.

Private means 'not public' & real property is actually a synonym for real estate, so no dice.

bc900 is conflating a type of fundamental property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
with a particular method for tracking property titles descended from the feudal titles bestowed by English kings in the centuries following the fall of Rome - big watershed with Norman invasion;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

http://property.laws.com/property-law/private-property
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/private-property

This one comes closest to bc900's redefinition;
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1611

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://thelawdictionary.org/private-property/
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/private-property-term.html

Stuff you can pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/personal-property/

Stuff you can't pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/real-property/

Who's messing with words again?

Also, according to this guy no customary law system has ever accounted for private property, which ignores;
Xeer - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
Weregild - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
Tuath - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law
Anglo-Saxon Law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law
Law Merchant - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
Harrappan law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Authority_and_governance

Labor being all mental and physical efforts in the creation, utilization, and dispensation, of capital. Capital being all physical and financial assets other than land.

This description of labour and capital I'm completely on board with, and I should have said so in a subsequent comment, but didn't.

That labor precedes capital can be inferred; this speaks not-at-all on how capital came into someone else's possession. Conversely, capital as a store of previous efforts does not speak at all on who's efforts created it. Nothing about control of capital implies justly acquired. This should be readily apparent from taxes, reinvested in infrastructure, rationalizing continued taxation.

It sounds like somebody cares about who takes what action in order to confer rewards, but that's precisely the private property advocate's point.

Yes, labour does precede most physical capital, even if it's something as simple as deliberately picking a seed and shoving it under some soil.

However the other argument here is directionless without an anchor in reason or evidence as to who did create the capital and why it was right or wrong that they got what they got for their efforts.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden

Ignoring my point. Chronology + moral agency together make the case for assignation of property rights in a given thing to one person and not another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Matthew John Hayden

Self-ownership is a bastardization of individual sovereignty for all, juxtaposing persons and property, and conflating property violence with personal violence (such as with your comment).

Self-ownership is just an inevitable outgrowth of the inalienable self-control that humans enjoy. It can be used to justify property rights in things but is not an attempt to conflate your control of your own body with your control of your computer.

Self ownership is not an attempt to commodify your body or 'soul', since any attempt to put up your own body as collateral denies self-ownership, thus denying the basis of all property rights, so only somebody opposed to self-ownership can potentially advocate attacking the body in service of debt.

If self-defence is acceptable then by definition defence of the external / non-bodily property one has acquired is also acceptable, bearing in mind what I said above.

If a dispute arises between a property owner and a walking anti-propertarian then either;
a. Proper can use force against Walker first.
b. Walker can use force against Proper first.
c. Neither can use force against the other.
d. Both can, inviting sheer chaos

Once viewed like this the question of the correctness of forcefully defending private property basically answers itself.

In the process, excusing subjugation and parasitism off other self-owners, and their productive efforts, via territorial / capital claims. Even going so far as to anoint reinforcement thereof as justified; even natural and righteous. Wholly negligent of threat-of-force employed on assuring contracts and collections.

Some C19th econ; little more than a conspiracy.

Force is an interpersonal dynamic and somebody has to initiate it. One is always free not to enter into any given work contract - no employer enforces the signing of contracts - meaning it ain't the employer initiating any kind of force.

Ignoring that contracts are agreements and that humans should be honest in dealing with each other. Also ignoring that absent the state there will be no more bailiffs.

Apparently honesty is evil.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right-libertarianism exposed
+Matthew John Hayden

It's interesting to see how this debate that you guys are having to a large extent lacks what ought to be the core issue: democracy. Do we want a system in which powerful individuals are giving us orders, and make important decisions in our economy that we can't affect much (stalinism/leninism/fascism/capitalism), or do we want a free, participatory democracy, with workplace democracy and people controlling their own lives and communities (libertarian socialism) Who makes the decisions and who should make the decisions that affect our lives? These are important questions when debating property rights.

If three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, maybe they'll elect the Nazis, or Zanu-PF.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Right-libertarianism exposed

Conservatives in general don't like democracy but libertarians are vehemently opposed to it like no one else.

I repeat. If three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, maybe they'll elect the Nazis, or Zanu-PF.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew John Hayden

I'd use more words, but I think we've reached the point where either pictures are necessary to explain the obviousness of private property rights and the fact that, despite my suspicions above, you're actually in favour of private property anyway, just held by the communes or co-ops.

There is nothing stopping that now, and there would be nothing stopping that in a stateless society either... so what exactly are you disagreeing with me over?

Do you honestly believe that everybody living in communes or co-ops will magically end economic scarcity?

Or do you perhaps believe that the folks in one commune won't vote to bar outsiders from partaking of their resources?

Maybe you entertain such pipe-dreams, but I am burdened by having learned economics and know for a fact that no such post-scarcity or universally altruistic moment will come just because of the move to communal living.

I'm not addressing your points rigorously in this comment, I know, but I don't see the point, since nobody has even begun to address mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Matthew John Hayden

" you're actually in favour of private property anyway, just held by the communes or co-ops."

With this statement I'm doubtful you actually know what private property is. You certainly don't understand why socialists are against it.

Once again, private ownership is exclusionary control by entities that are not governments, and private property is the stuff controlled. Public property is state control, and a commons is no control (everybody welcome everywhere all the time) with the latter falsely claimed by Elinor Ostrom studying groups of people and their private property-based solutions to common-pool resource problems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://property.laws.com/property-law/private-property
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/private-property
This one comes closest;
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1611

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://thelawdictionary.org/private-property/
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/private-property-term.html

Stuff you can pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/personal-property/

Stuff you can't pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/real-property/

Who's messing with words again?

Also, according to this guy no customary law system has ever accounted for private property, which ignores;
Xeer - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
Weregild - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
Tuath - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law
Anglo-Saxon Law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law
Law Merchant - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
Harrappan law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Authority_and_governance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right-libertarianism exposed
+butterflycaught900

I am aware. But that means that everyone who's debating these ultra right-wingers should bring this up, so that their tyrannical ideology is exposed.

People trading peacefully with each other in a world in which every given piece of land and water is owned by one or some, and not others, is tyrannical or ultra-right-wing? 

How? What's the mechanism of injury here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Right-libertarianism exposed

Private property sure is a Darwinian response. It emerged around the same time as family and was initially meant to guarantee patrilineality.

I doubt private property was ever 'meant' to be anything!

One thing, however, is that this tyranny is far better than living in a state of welfare dependency. I, by the way, am not talking about NASA but rather the bankrupt ghettos. That's why people leave these centres to become more self-sufficient and honestly socialism can ONLY work outside of capitalism. The Soviets understood that, as did the treasonous anarchists when slaughtered by Stalin and it's the sane reason why most hold onto their private property when confronted by reformist social democrats.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden

Private property in actual practice is property held by one person or group and thus not by another/others. It's exclusive/exclusionary.

There is more. Silly Matthew.

You can paint a pretty portrait that attempts to befuddle and amaze, but property is either owned exclusively by one person or group and respected by other persons or groups, or it is not.

In practice, agents of the state will in many circumstances not respect that private status - that's why we're all anarchists, after all - but folks like you and I will.

The alternative - public property - is everybody owns or has access to the thing that is public...

... like the oceans, or the rainforests, or public parks, lavatories, ro- I might as well stop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445

Private property is exclusionary. It, however, is the most productive vehicle in our capitalist world. That is also the case in Nordic nations where so much middle class wealth is tied based in private instruments and I doubt how that's managed is up for discussion within our current system.

Nevertheless, I don't really have an issue living in a mechanistic technocracy. I can see it work even if we don't question the notion of private property. It's advantage to be selfish and if a call for revolution is made, I'll respond accordingly.

Personally, I can't see this SJW rainbow bullshit succeeding. No, I have no issues with gender fluid lifestyles but this movement is highly bourgeois in character and highly bourgeois to boot.

I actually see higher upside retaining on my property. That's probably the main reason why those on the right maintain their position. This arrangement has persisted for millennia and a lot of convincing is going to be required. That is, I want to see a communial established in our Western technocracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
butterflycaught900
+Matthew John Hayden

Private property does not mean whatever you want it to mean. It means a title in real property.

Actually real property means real property. Private property is defined as, literally, not public. You basically take 'property' from the law dictionary, add 'privacy' and you have private property. But well done in your Kremlin-style dissembling. Putin would be proud.

It is these entitlements which enable absentee, parasitical, controllers; legalizing the threat and use of force.

Parasitical? Time to bring out the Who What Where When problem. Who takes what action in which location and at what time matters. In fact it always matters. This is an outgrowth of the laws of nature observed by natural science - excludability, scarcity, non-repeatability, and agency.

 All changes in nature have a cause and a consequence. Actions by humans have causes and consequences too. The cause is the person who takes the action. The consequence... well, come on, we all know by now.

Also, a lot less conflict is involved in people claiming private control over what they have de facto taken control of peacefully and them just trading it with each other than in people going around imposing on each other and simply taking some arbitrarily defined fair share without the already present persons getting a say. That is preferring invasion to peace.

Where this is readily apparent is in enforcing contracts and collections (e.g. evictions, repossessions, garnishments, asset seizures, etc). Systemic property, and systems of entitlement, remain machinations of the state regardless how correlating services are provided.

No forced repossession or eviction from one's property would exist in a private law society. Presumably this person thinks a tenant should have free reign to stick around in rented accommodation without paying the person or group who paid for it beforehand - something for nothing, right? This ignores the quid pro quo on which all healthy human relationships are built and which, coincidentally, all prosperity is built.

For the third time, definitions of;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://property.laws.com/property-law/private-property
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/private-property
This one comes closest;
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1611

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/private+property
http://thelawdictionary.org/private-property/
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/private-property-term.html

Stuff you can pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/personal-property/

Stuff you can't pick up;
http://thelawdictionary.org/real-property/

Who's messing with words again?

Also, according to this guy no customary law system has ever accounted for private property, which ignores;
Xeer - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
Weregild - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild
Tuath - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law
Anglo-Saxon Law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law
Law Merchant - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
Harrappan law - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Authority_and_governance

"that's why we're all anarchists"

You're not an anarchist.

Hmmm. Anarchists want Anarchy. Anarchy means 'not archy'. Archy is existence of a state and government. So anarchy is non-existence of a state and government. Ancaps want non-existence of the state and government... the defence rests.

bc900 is trying to conflate anarchism and socialism despite the completely different etymologies of the words 'anarchy' and 'society'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right-libertarianism exposed
+Whoknows1445

Private tyranny is far worse than a welfare state. The welfare state can at least be controlled in a somewhat democratic way. Corporations are totalitarian and acting like psychopaths.

A fascinating comparison. On the subject of the welfare state it seems we have an anarchist archist.

Since a corporation is a body of people with a common goal - selling shoes, for example - in which two separate relationships exist between the insiders and customers on the one hand, and between those insiders and suppliers on the other. There is nothing special about that. It's just a team.

A welfare state is not my ideal, I want a decentralized worker-run society without concentrated power, but just take a look at Scandinavia -- Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc., they have some of the most advanced societies in the world, with good standards of living for the vast part of the population. They are also among the happiest people on the planet. Just saying..

Socialism can work within capitalism as well. Of course, it will have challenges, but take say the Mondragon cooperatives in Spain. They're operating in the European and world economy, yet these democratically controlled (socialist anarchist) federated co-ops are extremely successful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZoI0C1mPek

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoknows1445
+Right-libertarianism exposed

I've visited Nordic nations extensively. Their standard of living has lot more to do with their homogeneous population. Once you go to Sweden and look at the Sami people much of the GINI hype disappears. Likewise, the same can be said about the immigrant population and it's hard not to ignore the emergence of fascism either.

One can't just compare Sweden to the United States when their histories are very different. On average white American standard of living is VERY similar to a Swede. It is also worth mentioning that those nations have been investing in a neo-liberal economic policy ever since the 90s. Reformism, however, means little-to-no changes and good look abolishing private property under that. The Nordic nations also have some of the highest household debts on the planet and economic mobility is heavily tied with private sector capital as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right-libertarianism exposed
Yesterday 3:44 PM

+Whoknows1445 No, their standard of living has to do with them trying to create a society in which as many as possible can have a decent life. Scandinavia has relatively strong unions, so they've been able to resist the neoliberal policies more.

The fact of the matter is that standards of living for the working and middle class has stagnated and even declined many places, while the rich have gotten spectacularly wealthier. The 85 richest people own more than the bottom 3,5 billion people. This has to stop. It's time to acknowledge that this Milton Friedman-theory, of privatizing and giving billionaires tax cuts, is bullshit. It's time to start democratizing the economy and our workplaces, so that we get control over our own lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whoknows1445
Yesterday 11:28 PM

+Right-libertarianism exposed 'o, their standard of living has to do with them trying to create a society in which as many as possible can have a decent life. Scandinavia has relatively strong unions, so they've been able to resist the neoliberal policies more. "

You're wrong Nordic nations had saw the biggest growth prior to the oil embargo. Prior to this time total factor productivity was increasing steadily and wages followed. It was around the 70s when nations like Sweden started introducing a welfare state due to the rate of profit diminishing. This is in addition to the fact that inequity low even a hundred years ago outside of their Sami population who still have horrendous outcomes.

Look at it this way, most Swedes who are well off will exploit private schooling. Most will outside the heavily socialised urban ghettos while opt for privatised suburban living. Those who have the opportunities to travel are the type who have far more investment in private vehicles and are usually employed by the private sector. Hell, even the urban ghettos are largely private sector-employed.

"

The fact of the matter is that standards of living for the working and middle class has stagnated and even declined many places, while the rich have gotten spectacularly wealthier. The 85 richest people own more than the bottom 3,5 billion people. This has to stop. It's time to acknowledge that this Milton Friedman-theory, of privatizing and giving billionaires tax cuts, is bullshit. It's time to start democratizing the economy and our workplaces, so that we get control over our own lives."'

That's ironic. If Nordic nations are so great, why the fuck are they among the leaders of neo-liberalism? Socialism - if it can be applied - ought to produce a rather self-sufficient population in any setting. That's really what communism is about, ultimate control over one's material outcome. It's because of a lack of that control why the family, religion, the state, and the corporation emerged. We depend on sheer complexity because we lack the ability to be self-sufficient. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, but the failure of reformism can be best demonstrated by the simple dismantlement of the welfare state in Nordic nations.

This entire notion that we ought to democratise society can NEVER be done within the system. Nordic nations, much like United States, are dominated by big business and big jumps in inequity ( and fascism) has a lot to do with government trying to mask real structural flaws. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+Whoknows1445

give up.

Unless you're going to bombard these people with an exhaustive list of refutations with historical examples and graphically illustrated logic diagrams you're not going to get anywhere.

I done learned my lesson.

Right Libertarianism Exposed deleted this comment too - but that's OK as this one does not add to the conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …