- 09 Feb 2011 13:10
#13623721
Please explain why a system in which ownership of natural resources is only conveyed on the first user is any way akin to slavery.
How can you have a market without property? How can you have property without the right to exclude? How can you have a right to exclude without, by your logic, calling it a "state"?
Where is any aggression in homesteading a natural resource previously unclaimed? Having homesteaded a plot of land, who is the aggressor, the farmer protecting his land, or a new-comer claiming equal access to it?
Remember, in Anarcho-Capitalism, original acquisition of title in land is not arbitrary. It is not based on merely fencing a piece of land. It is based on putting work into making it, from wilderness to an economically productive asset. Can you suggest a remotely practical society (beyond hunter-gatherer technology) in which people do not have the right to exclude others from the land they cultivate?
Houses can be used in many ways. Living in them is one. Renting them out is another. By your logic, say we have a dairy farmer who produces 1,000 gallons of milk a day. Obviously, he has no intention of drinking all that milk. By what right can he prevent me from just taking the milk without compensation? "I'm sorry, you cannot drink this milk because it came out of my cows"?
Land can be abandoned, at which point is becomes unowned again. Do you seriously suggest that your objection to Anarcho-Capitalism is based to a significant degree on the question of abandoned land?
I don't see your point. I do not support land-based assignment of land-based property, but rather assignment of property rights based on factual claims for original homesteading. We can debate the proper way to transition from our current society to a just Anarcho-Capitalist one (I have some ideas), or we can contemplate a group of pioneers who just landed on a large uninhabited continent. I don't see how past state injustices are in any way an argument against a political philosophy that rejects the state (in its conventional, not private, sense).
Is it your claim that a group of pioneers on a new continent, conducting themselves on Anarcho-Capitalist principles, will end up with "privilege for nothing"?
How about hotels? Do you think they are legitimately charging "rent" for their rooms? How about vacation properties? How do you feel about contractors who build homes and then sell them to home-owners? Legitimate?
So you would support societal standards that recognize the right of a person to exclusive control over land, at least in some circumstances? For example, your neighbours can legitimately exclude strangers from entering their home? Is their home a "state"?
For me its a guiding principle. I do not oppose the state because it was not bought properly. I oppose it because it is a state, because it is slavery.
Please explain why a system in which ownership of natural resources is only conveyed on the first user is any way akin to slavery.
Supposed superiority is irrelevant, and so is supposed justice. It is the state and a state title, it is privilege, it is intervention in the market and it is a monopoly and therefore it is obsolete for free people and will be abolished.
How can you have a market without property? How can you have property without the right to exclude? How can you have a right to exclude without, by your logic, calling it a "state"?
Property is part of the definition of violence, of aggression. Anarchism is about no aggression right?
Where is any aggression in homesteading a natural resource previously unclaimed? Having homesteaded a plot of land, who is the aggressor, the farmer protecting his land, or a new-comer claiming equal access to it?
Remember, in Anarcho-Capitalism, original acquisition of title in land is not arbitrary. It is not based on merely fencing a piece of land. It is based on putting work into making it, from wilderness to an economically productive asset. Can you suggest a remotely practical society (beyond hunter-gatherer technology) in which people do not have the right to exclude others from the land they cultivate?
But lets take it even further. Say he does use the land thoroughly. He builds a house there and lives in it for say ten years. he than leaves the house and has no intention to reuse it whatsoever. By what right can he prevent me form using it? "I'm sorry, you can't live here because I once did".
Houses can be used in many ways. Living in them is one. Renting them out is another. By your logic, say we have a dairy farmer who produces 1,000 gallons of milk a day. Obviously, he has no intention of drinking all that milk. By what right can he prevent me from just taking the milk without compensation? "I'm sorry, you cannot drink this milk because it came out of my cows"?
Now lets take it a final step further. Say a man plants a field. The field is his, no doubt. he uses for thirty years and than retires. seeing as at the moment there was an abundance of fields no one else wanted it and it died, or the plant version of such. Than a few years later a young couple sees the empty land and wants to build a home there. They build a nice home and are joyous and happy. suddenly a man they have never met before comes up and says "I'm sorry, there was once a field here and you will have to pay me to build a home here". economic slavery, because the spot was eternally reserved for some farmer who once had a field there. In anarchism, he will get a face full of led. A state, however, will be able to effectively reserve the space for him.
Land can be abandoned, at which point is becomes unowned again. Do you seriously suggest that your objection to Anarcho-Capitalism is based to a significant degree on the question of abandoned land?
Now there is the problem of existing property. I don't know if you heard, but today the state assigns all land based property. All of it. The entire system is based on the state deciding who gets to use what and for how much. Even if later transaction are "free", by capitalist terms, the original distribution is state based
I don't see your point. I do not support land-based assignment of land-based property, but rather assignment of property rights based on factual claims for original homesteading. We can debate the proper way to transition from our current society to a just Anarcho-Capitalist one (I have some ideas), or we can contemplate a group of pioneers who just landed on a large uninhabited continent. I don't see how past state injustices are in any way an argument against a political philosophy that rejects the state (in its conventional, not private, sense).
It is the way of capitalism. To give a man privilege is nothing.
Is it your claim that a group of pioneers on a new continent, conducting themselves on Anarcho-Capitalist principles, will end up with "privilege for nothing"?
If each was given his due there would be no rent.
How about hotels? Do you think they are legitimately charging "rent" for their rooms? How about vacation properties? How do you feel about contractors who build homes and then sell them to home-owners? Legitimate?
Eran wrote:Do you believe in allowing people to own land?
Melodramatic wrote:I allow nothing, for I am not a state and therefore can restrict nothing. I do respect the fact that my neighbors house is their own and will consider a man entering their home, without their consent, violent.
So you would support societal standards that recognize the right of a person to exclusive control over land, at least in some circumstances? For example, your neighbours can legitimately exclude strangers from entering their home? Is their home a "state"?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.