[Kamil]

Given that many individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker have used to term property in the sense of possession, I don't think that the dichotomy of property and possession is an appropriate choice of term. It is more useful to distinguish private ownership of property from private possession of property. The difference is not that one is idle while the other is used but rather how the property is being used. Possession of property is not synonymous with usage. It is based on occupancy and use. Not occupancy or use. If you are using the property for your own occupancy, it is possession. One example that I will illustrate is that of land. I am using my apartment, but my landlord is also using my apartment. We are both using the same property, but we are using it for very different purposes. I am using the property to live in, as a resident - in short, as an occupant. On the other hand, the landlord clearly is not using the apartment to occupy but rather make a profit by charging me for rent. Possession of property is limited to occupancy and use. Of course, one does not need property 24 hours a day.

If I build a house on an unoccupied land but yet I do not occupy that house itself, anyone can move into the house and onto the land. They being the occupants of the premise, I would have no claim against them. The gist of property is that it is a state-protected monopoly over the use of certain objects. If somebody were to use my property within the territorial region in which I have a state-protected monopoly of, I'd have power over the person violating my property rights. I can easily disallow any persons from occupying my premise.

As Infoshop distinguishes the two terms: "Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.)." Overall, property and possession is distinguished on the authority relations each generates.

That's just a brief juxtaposition on the two often misunderstood terms that are confused with one another whenever Anarchists speak of the abolition of property. Since FPX brought this up yesterday, I felt like covering the topic in a seperate post. Is everybody clear on this?

[smashthestate]

I think I understand your definition of possession and property (or private property), however I just have one question.

Since you are an anarchist, I must ask what mechanism (or lack thereof) there is in anarchism that protects the possession of certain things. For example, let's say I live in an anarchist society and I possess a car. Is there something that can protect or respect my possession of that car so that others may not simply possess it for themselves. Basically, what keeps someone else from taking the care for their own use and not returning.

Since there are no laws or rules respecting that possessed car as private property, what prevents the aforementioned from occuring?

I have some thoughts already. My guess is that your answer is nothing, except that I may protect it only by my individual use of physical force. In other words, even though it is not my private property, I can/will protect the car in my possession by any means necessary to prevent others from taking it.

Is my assumption correct?

[Kamil]

Although such questions do not always entail pre-determined methods for preventing such proposed scenarios, I would think that the whole ownership of possession would revolve around occupancy and use. If one were to expropriate your possession and you were to either witness it or know of who exactly did such a thing, it'd depend upon personal action. If you were to inform the local commune or militia, you'd be able to confront the perpetrator of theft to return the expropriated item back onto you. I'm sure that the perpetrator would not be hurt or killed even if s/he refused to return possession. The militia would surely do nothing to him/her and would stay out of the matter as the victim would negotiate. If the victim did not repossess the stolen possession, it'd be their choice as to whether they'd apply the use of violence or if they would not bother to get claim over the item. Remember about the likely dissipation in this milieu and how relations between members of society are ameliorated and are not on hostile terms. The purpose of the militia, however, would be merely to back up the victim so that they are not assaulted.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

For example, let's say I live in an anarchist society and I possess a car. Is there something that can protect or respect my possession of that car so that others may not simply possess it for themselves. Basically, what keeps someone else from taking the care for their own use and not returning.

Cars would be abolished, they are just tools of capitalism, in anarchism we would not need cars for anything, because there would be self-sufficient communes in which the factory workers own the factories they work and the farm workers own the lands they work. So there would be no reason to travel, and car production is a waste of land and resources in an economy that has the prosperity of all members of the society as its main priority.

Since there are no laws or rules respecting that possessed car as private property, what prevents the aforementioned from occuring?

Anarchism does not have to be pro-cars, and I personally think that cars should be confiscated and car production factories seized by the masses and the material of the cars used to produce things of more importance, such as working tools (because everyone would have to work unless they are injured, handicap, or etc., which in that case they would be taken care of without their being any worry for the cost, because money and labor exploitation would be abolished), assault rifles (for defense), and etc.

I have some thoughts already. My guess is that your answer is nothing, except that I may protect it only by my individual use of physical force. In other words, even though it is not my private property, I can/will protect the car in my possession by any means necessary to prevent others from taking it.

That is egotistical, not collectivist. What ever the masses desire is the desire of Anarchism, for in Anarchism the majority is the government.

Kam, am I right or wrong on the aforementioned, please elaborate your response. Thank you.

[smashthestate]

If you were to inform the local commune or militia, you'd be able to confront the perpetrator of theft to return the expropriated item back onto you.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

Tell me, how is this that much different from notifying my local police department and having them enforce my state-protected monopoly on the ownership of my vehicle?

The only difference I can find is simply a formality, a technicality. In reality, the two actions are no different. This is one example of how anarchy doesn't really do-away with government, it just renames and replaces it. There may not be one omnipresent government like most societies today, but there will most certainly (beyond any doubt) be authorities that exist, and whose rules and laws will be enforced.

This is the dichotomy of anarchy.

I'm sure that the perpetrator would not be hurt or killed even if s/he refused to return possession.

How can you be sure? There are no laws preventing this type of retaliation. The only thing that may happen is further retaliation by another individual or group of individuals (members of a commune or militia, as you suggested earlier).

Remember about the likely dissipation in this milieu and how relations between members of society are ameliorated and are not on hostile terms.

Do you have any real, historical evidence of such a behavioral change occuring in a similiar anarchic type situation? I would contend that in fact the opposite tends to occur more often than not. Individuals become more selfish and more hostile toward their fellow man.

The purpose of the militia, however, would be merely to back up the victim so that they are not assaulted.

Again, this is a technicality. It is no different than government force, just disguised under a different banner.

[smashthestate]

What ever the masses desire is the desire of Anarchism, for in Anarchism the majority is the government.

Or at least that's the hope. How do you know it's going to work out this way when put into practice.

I always saw anarchism as a revolution and the subsequent destruction of the existing government (or highest authority). However, after this happens, the pieces will just fall where they will. There are now laws or anything to sway the people toward collectivism as opposed to individualism.

In this case, you're just assuming that the people would indeed prefer collectivism. However, the entire thing is a big assumption to begin with.

[Kamil]

Cars would be abolished, they are just tools of capitalism

Not necessarily. Although I find no personal use for cars, it doesn't mean others will give up on them. They're a convenient means of transportation.

That is egotistical, not collectivist. What ever the masses desire is the desire of Anarchism, for in Anarchism the majority is the government.

In Anarchism, all are the government, not just the majority. Speaking of the dichotomy of collectivism and individualism, most Anarchists would find themselves in the position of social individualism.

Kam, am I right or wrong on the aforementioned, please elaborate your response. Thank you.

I only skimmed through your post, but from what I got, your anti-cars, majority government, and egoist comments all seem to be inaccurate. Egoism is not a crime and will be allowed, cars are likely to be maintained dsince they are convenient, and that if we are to imply government, it should be implied towards the whole society, not just the majority.

Tell me, how is this that much different from notifying my local police department and having them enforce my state-protected monopoly on the ownership of my vehicle?

A police department consists of individuals above society whereas a communal militia is composed of local neighbours. The involvement of the militia is not a requisite, but I favour it nonetheless. Not because I believe that violence should be applied to the situation but that I can confront the perpetrators with security. If somebody has stolen something from you, it'd be wise to bring along a couple of friends to secure your safety. This is not likely to happen, though. If such a situation were to arise and say that things did turn ugly because the militia decided to use force, this would not categorize Anarchism as a state-utilizing lifestyle. If I and a couple of friends decide to assault a man in a stateless milieu, does this constitute a governmental structure that's within the society? No. You do have the power to exercise authority and violence over another, but if you scientifically and empirically evaluate anarchist society and the behaviour of its residents, you'll surely come to the conclusion that social relations among individuals will ameliorate and will diminish, if not obliterate, violent associations. The Anarchist superstructure of classlessness, equality, solidarity, free association, and voluntary participation, such ideals will foster a more benevolent society and will not precipitate deterioration. If anything, it would be seldom that a minority would be corrupted suffice to be categorized as a threat. If I were the victim of this theft, I'd be accompanied by the militia for security reasons, not violent retaliative ones. I don't even know why I termed the group as a militia since I would not require for anyone to bring weaponry. In fact, I wouldn't care if my car got stolen since I am not commodity obsessed. Big deal, I won't be deeply impacted.

The only difference I can find is simply a formality, a technicality. In reality, the two actions are no different. This is one example of how anarchy doesn't really do-away with government, it just renames and replaces it. There may not be one omnipresent government like most societies today, but there will most certainly (beyond any doubt) be authorities that exist, and whose rules and laws will be enforced.

This is the dichotomy of anarchy.

The two actions are different. Firstly, notice how it's my personal opinion that a "militia" should get involved. I already mentioned how there's no pre-determined response to this fiasco. Therefore, in my personal case, I would bring along a group of neighbours or friends strictly for security reasons, not at all to enforce anything. If the perpetrator went crazy and refused to return my possession, I'd walk away. It's more worth it to be safe than sorry. There's no need to precipitate violent and hostile relations. There will be a government, in a way, as all the people would occupy the position of ruling class although no one would enforce anything on anyone since it's not under their jurisdiction. They have power of their own lives, not others.

Secondly, a minority's acts would not constitute a state within the society.

How can you be sure? There are no laws preventing this type of retaliation. The only thing that may happen is further retaliation by another individual or group of individuals (members of a commune or militia, as you suggested earlier).

People won't be commodity driven. Unless there's some sort of a pathological disorder, or if a minority of individuals is corrupted, there will be violence. Remember my arguement entailing the amelioration of individuals? Would you agree?

Do you have any real, historical evidence of such a behavioral change occuring in a similiar anarchic type situation? I would contend that in fact the opposite tends to occur more often than not. Individuals become more selfish and more hostile toward their fellow man.

It's scientific evaluation. In retrospect, out of the several Anarchist movements around the world, I will use the most significant and popular example - Spain. Now, did the Anarchists precipitate internal violence with one another proving the chaos theory to be correct? Did they not work together?

Again, this is a technicality. It is no different than government force, just disguised under a different banner.

This is merely what I would do. The incentive for being accompanied by the militia would be to ensure security, not to enforce my rule. It's seldom that such acts would be prompted anyways. Look at the history of statism. Not only are people not happy, such violence is always plentiful. Inequality precipitates insubordination, poverty, and crime. The Anarchist system where no one has claim over the life of another and most, if not all, are content, it will be seldom that violence will be inflicted. Everyone has equal opportunity, is not in hostile competition with another, is free to do as one likes without violating another's life, and where they have control over their life. It is not likely that such epidemics will break out.

There are now laws or anything to sway the people toward collectivism as opposed to individualism.

http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca213