- 23 Jun 2004 01:19
#365518
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?
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?