"Property is Theft"

[peterw5]

Two of the main principles in a Libertarian or Anarchist society are private property rights and the Non-Aggression-Principle (NAP). On the other hand, Marxists and Leftist Anarchists are against private property rights because private property rights leads to privilege and class hierarchies. With the law of private property in place some people will inevitably have more property than others, giving them and their inheritors a material advantage over others. A child born to rich parents has a distinct advantage over a child born to poor parents. Libertarianism doesn’t seem to address this inequality. Libertarianism defends private property as an inalienable right and that any violation of private property is “aggression” (i.e. violates the NAP). However, to the Marxist that seems like a very narrow view of “aggression.” The Marxist would consider it an aggression against the poor that poor children are born with nothing whereas the children of the rich are born with huge wealth. After all, it’s not the children’s decision who their parents are. Why should the children of the wealthy have such a material advantage over the children of the poor? Rich children will have vastly more opportunities and education. Yet Libertarianism defends this inequality. Libertarians defend the “free market” as the great equalizer, but how can it be an equalizer when some people start with a lot more resources than others? How can Libertarianism defend this inequality of material wealth and opportunity between classes, especially among children, as moral?

[Mister Mister]

"Property is theft" fails a basic logic test, as any definition of theft depends on a definition of just property.I appreciate your point, but the problem as I see it, is that the way this inequality is addressed, is by giving a small group of people the power to redistribute resources as they see fit, which is clearly a far greater inequality than having more stuff than others.  Wherever there is a State, and a monopoly over moving around wealth, there exists greater wealth inequality.  Do you see a way of addressing wealth inequality for the sake of children that is not immoral or dysfunctional?

[NoTreason]

Hoppe's argumentation ethics is amazing to use while calling these people out.

 

The fact that they'll even attempt to argue or reason with you over property rights presupposes that both individuals in thr arguement are respecting the other individuals right to property in their body or whatever other property is being argued over (if there wasnt a presupposed acknowledgement for individual property rights it wouldnt be an arguement it would be an assault or a theft).

 

So the simple fact theyre even engaging in a peaceful argument completely contradicts their argument.

 

People have a hard time defining private property. It means the individual with the best claim to the control of a rivalrous good or resource.

 

I'm using my phone to type this, by doing so i claim i have the best claim to it, otherwise it'd be theft. This is a philosophical fact rather i realize i am making that claim to it while using it or not, the claim to private property still exists regardless of my realization or denial of it.

 

I also want to add, that even if i did steal my phone to write this, i would still be making a claim to it as my property. However, i wouldn't have the moral and best claim to it as private property because i did not aquire it through voluntary trade with the origional owner.The claim to it as private property is still there though.

 

Point being, every peice of property you touch or use you are making a claim to as private property, you literally can't touch or use anything without making the claim to it. It's the dispute of who has the rightful claim to property that the arguement should be over, not if there's property at all."

 

That was from a seperate post of my mine on a different thread but i feel it applies here as well.

 

Marxist anarchists falsely believe there is no individual property rights but they are mistaken. They are just claiming that they, as individuals, have the individual right to other peoples rivalrous property against their voluntary will. They are still making an individual claim to the right to control rivalrous property and they don't have to admit it for that to be true.

It's not an equalizer as if every individual has an equal amount of property.

 

It's equal as an every individual has the equal right to property.

 

marxism requires the use of force to allocate resources, libertarianism requires voluntary trade and contract with no force. BOTH are based on individual property rights.

 

In marxism the majority of peoples each as individuals claim they have the individual right to the property of all other individuals, individuals that did not voluntarily trade or contract with them to give them that right.

 

The fact that they believe they had a prior right to it and therefor the current owner of the property in dispute is using force to prevent them from having it is laughable.

 

This is no different than a theif saying he didnt commit a crime because he had a right to the property and the current owner was using force to prevent him from having it, he would be laughed out of civil court with an argument like this. Where did his individual right to that property in dispute come from? he just made it up.

 

It's all individial property rights, the arguement is over if individual property rights exist or not, it's over what individial has the best and moral claim to that property.

[Alan C.]

The other thing that Marxists (and left-liberals) like to do is to hold everyone in society accountable for the plight of poor children, except the parents who brought them into the world.

[Wesley]

I would have much preferred my parents to be poorer and to have cared for me and shown me empathy and loved me than for my upper middle class parents to have done many of the abusive behaviors they did do.

 

I know this isn't directly related to the OP, but I thought I would go from a different angle than the other probably are going.

 

I also like Alan's post which went from a different angle than usual.

[Flake]

Rich children will have vastly more opportunities and education. Yet Libertarianism defends this inequality. Libertarians defend the “free market” as the great equalizer, but how can it be an equalizer when some people start with a lot more resources than others? How can Libertarianism defend this inequality of material wealth and opportunity between classes, especially among children, as moral?

 

Opportunities, yes. Education? You can learn how to do pretty much anything online, for little, or no money. All that would be needed is access to the internet, which even the poorest of the poor can get by going to the library, or piggybacking off of someone's WiFi. Libertarianism doesn't defend inequality, it says that socioeconomic equality isn't feasible, so it supports equality of authority instead (something which is feasible). Roderick Long explains this here,

[tasmlab]

Is being born into wealth much different than being born good looking, especially talented, exceptionally strong, etc., or any other advantage bestowed randomly to children?

 

The most sweeping lefty argument I've heard on social justice, though, would compensate for these shortcomings/advantages as well.  The idea was "If you could design society before you born, and you didn't know whether you'd be rich or poor, handsome or ugly, able or handicapped, etc., the way you would design it would reflect social justice i.e., you would design it to accommodate all of your potential weaknesses."

 Libertarians defend the “free market” as the great equalizer, but how can it be an equalizer when some people start with a lot more resources than others? How can Libertarianism defend this inequality of material wealth and opportunity between classes, especially among children, as moral?

 

Perhaps this is nuance, but I don't believe libertarians believe the free market as the great equalizer.  It's just voluntary exchange.  And wealth inequality has to occur; it's how the market picks the winners, rewards the most in-demand products/producers, signals demand, etc.  Maybe I misunderstood your point.

 

I don't think inequality itself is an amoral concept.  One person having wealth doesn't inflict poverty unto another.  And any action to create equality in wealth that wasn't voluntary would require force, and that would be immoral.

[fridolutin]

Private property is a reflection, in my opinion, of the ownewrship of my own body and as the body property can be challenged by microbes and parasites also can be the house or the land. 

 

IN the animal kingdom land ownership is seen by the defense of the territory and I think it is the same for humans. I think the most fit, healthiest, shall as the animals, ow the land to sustain his family or tribe but not more, otherwise it becomes theft. 

[PatrickC]

IN the animal kingdom land ownership is seen by the defense of the territory and I think it is the same for humans. I think the most fit, healthiest, shall as the animals, ow the land to sustain his family or tribe but not more, otherwise it becomes theft. 

 

 

Theft from whom exactly?

 

If I build a great condo by a lake in a wilderness region for my leisure time, completely superfluous to my families living needs. A place where my children, wife and friends can enjoy together, beyond the necessities of life itself. Whom am I stealing from?

[Alan C.]

What does it mean to be poor?One of my grandmothers grew up on a farm in rural Oklahoma with no indoor plumbing, natural gas, electricity, appliances, or central air/heat.The helpdesk at the company I work for is staffed mostly by young adults, most of whom are college students who think that they're poor. They all have cars, smart phones, computers, cable TV, Netflix, iTunes, and access to appliances (microwave, washer/dryer, A/C, hot water, etc.).If Marxists and left-anarchists oppose private property because it leads to privilege and hierarchy then it would be a performative contradiction for them to have any property of their own.Libertarianism is a social philosphy based upon non-aggression; it's purpose isn't equality.Divesting a person of legitimately acquired property without consent is an implicit claim over that person by proxy. That's why it's aggression. While the person isn't physically aggressed against directly, it's tantamount to robbing that person of a portion of his life.Why is it a problem that some have greater material wealth than others?The free-market is simply people freely exchanging with each other. Its purpose isn't to reduce society down to the lowest common denominator; that's the purpose of Marxism (to make everyone equally destitute).Libertarianism doesn't defend inequality of material wealth and opportunity as moral. Libertarianism doesn't have anything to say about material wealth and opportunity.Private property is essential to the survival of humanity, without which most would die of starvation and exposure.

[PatrickC]

The trouble with the 'cultural Marxist' or 'leftist' ideology as I'm beginning to see it Alan and you may agree perhaps. Is that it hides in many foxholes that most of it's followers seem consciously oblivious too. That of religion, relativism, identity politics and many more of course.

 

Of course these positions can all be summed up within the belief that the 'collective' always morally outstrip the 'individual'. Except collectives cannot be seen of course, only individuals.

[Hannibal]

Don't those guys tend to differentiate between personal property, and "the means of production" as property? Not that it makes any sense to me, but it would make arguments about performative contradictions, etc, redundant.

[Alan C.]

I neglected to address the point about education.

 

The market has made education available to virtually everyone at little to no cost.

 

Tens of thousands of free books are available for download on the Internet, thousands of hours of instructional videos are viewable for free, and educational software can be purchased for the price of a large pizza.

 

Meanwhile, the State spends tens of thousands of dollars per year to "educate" a child in a dull, tedious, repetitious, plodding, uninspiring environment replete with useless lessons of no practical application, memorization and regurgitation of factoids and propaganda, and rampant bullying.

[peterw5]

"Property is theft" fails a basic logic test, as any definition of theft depends on a definition of just property.

 

The quote should probably actually say “Private property is theft.” See, Marxists make a distinction between private property (which they consider to be unjust and illegitimate) and personal property (which they consider just).  Personal property would include such things as one’s own body, clothes, home, small amounts of money --basically items intended for personal use. Private property, on the other hand, refers to ownership of the means of production, large amounts of capital, and large amounts of land.

 

I appreciate your point, but the problem as I see it, is that the way this inequality is addressed, is by giving a small group of people the power to redistribute resources as they see fit, which is clearly a far greater inequality than having more stuff than others.

 

Theoretically, in a real Marxist system the power to redistribute resources would not be given to a small group of people, but would be in the hands of the majority –the proletariat. It would be decided democratically. That’s the theory, anyway. Whether or not that can work in practice is debatable.

 

The fact that they'll even attempt to argue or reason with you over property rights presupposes that both individuals in thr arguement are respecting the other individuals right to property in their body or whatever other property is being argued over (if there wasnt a presupposed acknowledgement for individual property rights it wouldnt be an arguement it would be an assault or a theft).

 

You are confusing private property with personal property. A person’s body is personal property not private property. Marxists believe that people have a right to have personal property.

 

marxism requires the use of force to allocate resources, libertarianism requires voluntary trade and contract with no force.

 

There is force in Libertarianism. The force in Libertarianism is the force used to uphold and defend private property. To paraphrase James Madison, It’s the force used to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority who are less fortunate. That's to say, It’s to keep the poor from rising up and redistributing the wealth of the rich. Now you might claim that all interactions in a Libertarian system are “voluntary,” but it sure doesn’t look that way from a Marxist standpoint. The lower classes do not work for the rich voluntarily. No, they work for the rich because they have no other choice but to work for the rich or starve to death. People of the lower class do not have the resources to do anything other than be slave labor for the Capitalist class in a system that uses force defending the private property of the Capitalist class.

 

Edit: grammar.

[PatrickC]

There is force in Libertarianism. The force in Libertarianism is the force used to uphold and defend private property. To paraphrase James Madison, It’s the force used to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority who are less fortunate. That's to say, It’s to keep the poor from rising up and redistributing the wealth of the rich. Now you might claim that all interactions in a Libertarian system are “voluntary,” but it sure doesn’t look that way from a Marxist standpoint. The lower classes do not work for the rich voluntarily. No, they work for the rich because they have any other choice but to work for the rich or starve to death. People of the lower class do not have the resources to do anything other than be slave labor for the Capitalist class in a system that uses force defending the private property of the Capitalist class.

 

Defense is not force. Force is force and defence is defence. They have two very different meanings. If Marxists choose to see it as the same thing then they are truly fabricating the libertarian position to suit their own purposes.

 

Remember, philosophy will call things by their proper name.

[fridolutin]

Why is it a problem that some have greater material wealth than others?

 

 

 

The problem is not only towards others but also for yourself, having to insure or look after the things you ow. As the wealth of american society increased, also did the restrictive laws and exigencies that translate in taxes and time consuming actions to protect all your belongings. 

We can see that to insure the upper class minority level of life the government has to impose to 

nature, low laboring classes and foreign countries an unsustainable low level of existence bearing terrorist and criminal actions.  

 

The main discussion in this topic is around the right to ow more than others which is not a right but an evidence. This happens at birth without, most of the time, any control over the genetics we inherit from our ancestors. Are we, from the birth, meant to be poor ? Its not being rich or poor, but what is done with the opportunities you have, being altruistic or egoistic.

 

I think we should work at the source do everything there so all children would arrive healthy in a loving and sane middle. A sane environment , in my opinion, is a natural one where other living creatures are respected in their needs.  We will then realize that wherever we are we can benefit from the pure flowing water. 

 

The biggest problem is the lack of opportunities in this artificial manmade world and the illusion is to think we can individually be wealthy while ignoring the increasing poverty of the mass, not only humans.  Life should be seen as a global reality instead of an anthropomorphic scenery. 

 

We are at the edge of a change, where some will continue in the same direction while others will modify their orientation considerably. This change is to be more inclusive after being exclusive, to understand and apply the knowledge all is related and inter dependant. 

[2bits]

The quote should probably actually say “Private property is theft.”

..

The lower classes do not work for the rich voluntarily. No, they work for the rich because they have no other choice but to work for the rich or starve to death.

You can't steal your own private property by the definition of 'theft'. You must first argue that someone else has a greater claim to the property, which makes your question a bit nonsensical. Then you can say there is theft of others' property.

 

It is absolutely false that the lower classes must work for rich masters. That would be slavery, which can only exist through force with the sanction of government. The "lower classes" absolutely have options. They can start a service business, many of which require little or no startup capital... oh wait, that can only happen if the government regulations, licensing, and taxation can be satisfied. Without the moral hazzard of government support, they are more likely to be forward looking and save some small amount of capital. This greatly opens their options as well. The fact is, the only reason the "poor" work for the "rich" is that they offer the "poor" their best option at the time.

 

In a real free economy, the vast majority will earn what they are worth. If you want to earn more, invest more capital in yourself and become more valuable. Any deviation from this reflects inefficiency that will be corrected by the market. If you earn too much, your employer is at a competitive disadvantage. If you earn too little, you are free to leave and work somewhere else.

 

Good intentions to help the poor are fine, but the ends don't justify the means. Taking money earned by some and giving it to others who have earned less is real theft. The best possible argument is that the theft is justified (just like "war" justifies murder), but then we must ignore the costs of the market distortions that redistribution causes. If you give stolen goods to the poor, are they better off? Immediately, sure, just like freshly printed money makes first-recipients richer. You pay the costs later. From both fiscal and moral standpoints, it just doesn't work.

[NoTreason]

'private property is theft'

 

Literally makes no sense.

 

You have to make the case that you have the better claim to someone elses property than they themselves have to it. I don't know how you can make that claim without just declaring it and using force.

 

And, even when you do this, youre only claiming that you have the private property right to it. So it's still private property, but i bet it's not theft when that stolen private property is finally your private property, it's only theft when it's other peoples private property, am i right?

 

You claim there is no private property while making a claim to private property...

[Alan C.]

I think we should work at the source do everything there so all children would arrive healthy in a loving and sane middle.

 

I was wondering how much time you dedicate to this work on a daily or weekly basis?

 

A sane environment , in my opinion, is a natural one where other living creatures are respected in their needs.

 

What is a 'need' a who decides?

 

The biggest problem is the lack of opportunities in this artificial manmade world and the illusion is to think we can individually be wealthy while ignoring the increasing poverty of the mass, not only humans.

 

I'd prefer to live in a manmade world with abundance and comfort. If you've ever watched Survivorman or Man vs. Wild you'll see that the natural world presents a constant struggle against starvation, exposure, dehydration, vitamin deficiency, diarrhea, hypothermia, injury, and envenomation.

 

A century ago, the flu could mean a death sentence. Today, it's possible to run down the street to the local drug store and you're good as new in a week or two.

 

The increase in poverty is the result of the State interferring in the market and the massive parasite class which enables the State.

 

Prosperity, abundance, and wealth aren't illusions. My standard of living far exceeds that of my grandparents and I earn only a modest income.

[fridolutin]

I was wondering how much time you dedicate to this work on a daily or weekly basis?

 

 

 

I’m retired, so I use all my working time to this cause.  

What is a 'need' and who decides?

 

 

 

I’m talking of basic needs such as a natural territory where those wild species can live and find food.. The manmade animal reserves are not enough. 

 

I'd prefer to live in a manmade world with abundance and comfort. If you've ever watched Survivorman or Man vs. Wild you'll see that the natural world presents a constant struggle against starvation, exposure, dehydration, vitamin deficiency, diarrhea, hypothermia, injury, and envenomation.

 

 

 

Those survivor shows underlines the fact the modern man is ignorant of what is fundamental knowledge. By relying on others to look after what he should be able to do by himself, he becomes ignorant and dramatically dependant. (Slave by consent)

A century ago, the flu could mean a death sentence. Today, it's possible to run down the street to the local drug store and you're good as new in a week or two.

 

 

 

The flu took its greatest toll in the cities, that artificial middle is unfit for the expression of a sane life.  Saying that you are good as new after taking drugs to avoid looking at the source of the problem is diverting the problem in a garage lane. Soon or later it will come back stronger. We all know drug abuse is a big problem.

 

The increase in poverty is the result of the State interferring in the market and the massive parasite class which enables the State. Prosperity, abundance, and wealth aren't illusions. My standard of living far exceeds that of my grandparents and I earn only a modest income.

 

 

 

I think that our exaggerated consummation of natural resources is the main cause of increasing poverty. This whole economy based on money is a mirage that many misinterpret as a measure of wealth.  We’ll see in the coming years the collapse of this money economy and many will realize that the natural economy never disappeared and is still the most efficient and sustainable  form of exchange between living beings. The illusion of abundance is artificially maintained by the increasing of the national debt in most of the developed countries.  We shouldn’t look at our grandparents for comparing our standard of life without considering the state of their natural resources. 

[PatrickC]

Those survivor shows underlines the fact the modern man is ignorant of what is fundamental knowledge. By relying on others to look after what he should be able to do by himself, he becomes ignorant and dramatically dependant. (Slave by consent)

 

This is another great example of how people twist the definitions of words. In this case 'slavery'.

[RestoringGuy]

It is only objects you can be "legitmately" deprived of that are labelled property of others.  Repossession and compensation are just moral tools.  When an item is discovered as stolen property, and you bought it with no knowledge that it was stolen, statists and anarchocapitalists alike will say the item belongs to the original owner and the current possessor has no valid ownership.  The socially-constructed right to repossess the item is the defining trait of anyone who believes in property.I think we inherit a tangled mess of war, taxation, state-confiscation, and forced labor and legal compliance, most people will cherry-pick the rationale for legitimacy of force needed as a corrective measure.  Nobody, not even Marxists will deny the right to own the fruit of one's own direct labor.  But after that fruit has changed hands by force, or built in factories with proxy corporate and absentee-ownership (a social fiction), it seems like fair game to question the legitimacy.There is also the illusion that dead people can "own" things despite demonstrating no conscious action or any real chance of recovering their stuff.  At a minimum, inheritance is theft because it embodies the dead with real moral authority just as someone might describe God's Will regarding who deserves what.