andrew21594 Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) I have a friend who labels himself an anarcho-communist. He doesn't believe in private property and, one believer in a stateless society to another, asks me what would happen to all the private property if the state fell and a stateless society emerged. He asks that question because he thinks that, assuming private property can be legitimate, none of today's private property is legitimate because of government interfering with private property. The exchange of private property has, for as long as governments have existed, been interfered with by government; government has taxed and regulated private property and has indirectly affected the trade of private property through the effects of its policies (eg. government orders construction of highway -> people buy land next to highway to set up a motel). Over hundreds (eg. US) or thousands (eg. UK) of years, government has steered the exchange of private property in directions that it would not have gone without government interference. So private property today would not be owned by the same people if it weren't for the use of violence. Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned. Question 1) "Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned." - Do you agree? If yes, then Question 2) Once a stateless society emerges, who owns what? Do we abandon all current ownerships and collect private property in a giant free-for-all? Sorry, by "legitimate", I mean non-aggressively, morally sound etc., nothing to do with the law. Thanks, Andy Edited November 1, 2014 by andrew21594
dsayers Posted November 1, 2014 Posted November 1, 2014 He doesn't believe in private property Sure he does. When he uses his body to communicate to you that he rejects private property, he's accepting the private property that is his body. This is known as a performative contradiction. Question 1) "Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned." - Do you agree? No. I came to own my car by way of voluntary trade using stored value that I had earned by way of voluntary trade. The fact that the state took some as I earned the money, took some as I spent the money, took some by licensing and regulating that which I spent it on, etc doesn't mean that my ownership of the car is illegitimate. It is true that States have enabled people to come to own things that they did not acquire by voluntary means, but this wouldn't invalidate all property ownership.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 It is infinitely more exciting to think about all the areas of the planet that are unowned, or "publicly owned." What would happen with the 71% of the Earth's surface that is classified as international water, which cannot currently be owned? Your imagination is the limit. Underwater cities, fuck yeah!
yagami Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 Im going to try to resist the temptation to blow up the contradiction of anarcho-communist and answer the questions. For the first question I would say who cares whether the property is legitimately owned or not. We are all prisoners and do what we must to survive. Once the government is gone we will have to pick up the pieces of what's left and move forward. I guess I just dont understand the importance of why legitimacy matters when it comes to moving from one type of society to another. Lets say the government owns 100% of the property and then we become a stateless society out of nowhere. Everyone will have to buy property from said government. Even if we say this is illegitimate what baring does that bring to bare on the real world? Should we give it back to the government? The people who originally owned the land are long since dead. So we can never legitimately give that back. As far as building computers and things like that it is impossible to tell who the property belongs to. We cant collectively own the government building because there is no way to tell if my dollars were taken and went to one building or the next. So the government selling the property to the highest bidder is the only option we really have the makes sense. Will the owner of the property be the legitimate owner? I would say yes only because no one can point to the individual it should belong to. Since you are speaking to a communist I would assume he would then say it belongs to the people collectively. To that I would say what happens when the generation that owns that property dies and the next generation takes over. Are we really going to say that we somehow collectively decided to pass this property to the next generation? It would be impossible to get a collective consensus on that. You also have to take into account how would anyone make any decisions regarding the property. Who will maintain the property and is this maintenance compulsory? There are so many ways why collective ownership of property wont work the only sensible answer would be to have individuals own the property which means selling the property. Hope that answers your question.
QueechoFeecho Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I am picturing a large auction. I am having trouble coming up with who receives the proceeds of the auction.
shirgall Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I am picturing a large auction. I am having trouble coming up with who receives the proceeds of the auction. The holders of the national debt, perhaps? Those bonds need to be paid off, unless they are held by the Fed. Those should be forgiven.
dsayers Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 The holders of the national debt, perhaps? Who is 1920s China in the year 2014? How is lending made up money to a fictional character representative of an actual debt? Isn't that like putting your money on black at the roulette wheel, it comes up red, and you think you're owed the money that you risked? The national debt says that my productivity was owned before I was even born. How can it be legitimate?
shirgall Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Who is 1920s China in the year 2014? How is lending made up money to a fictional character representative of an actual debt? Isn't that like putting your money on black at the roulette wheel, it comes up red, and you think you're owed the money that you risked? The national debt says that my productivity was owned before I was even born. How can it be legitimate? Most of the existing bonds are less than 30 years old because they stop earning interest... and a significant portion of most people's long-term savings has some exposure to bonds. It is simply acknowledging reality to hope that real people get some of the proceeds of selling off a country's assets, whether that's a legitimate entity or not. After all, what sort of money are you using to sell off those assets anyway, if we're going to pick nits.
Pepin Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Question 1) "Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned." - Do you agree? Some small portion would be, but it is important not to conflate the immorality of the government with the immorality of its subjects. As a general rule of thumb, trades which occurred without violence can be considered to be valid as any compliance with the law was at the point of a gun, and any trades which occurred at the point of the gun would be invalid. Provided that we are right about ancap, there being a problem in transition to a voluntarist society is a good thing as it demonstrates a decrease in violence. There of course would be some issues and ambiguities, just as there are with those who profited from slavery prior to its abolition, but that does not invalidate the solution. Rather it is more of a reason to implement it, as it solves the problem of wrongful ownership. Question 2) Once a stateless society emerges, who owns what? Do we abandon all current ownerships and collect private property in a giant free-for-all? This assumes the previous assertion is correct, which it isn't. As far as government "owned" property, there would be many different methods of dealing with that problem with the best coming out on top, which is the point of capitalism. Even if it isn't handled very well or very fairly, is it that big of deal? If the biggest problem with ending slavery was who the plantations would belong to after, isn't that kind of a non-problem? Even if the plantation owner still retains ownership, isn't that a smaller matter to deal with than the ending of slavery?
QueechoFeecho Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 The buyer of a government asset could make theirpayment to everyone who isnt buying it. Some clearinghouse type function would be needed. All that aside I see only a gradual transition and not an instant one.
luxfelix Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 The buyer of a government asset could make theirpayment to everyone who isnt buying it. Some clearinghouse type function would be needed. All that aside I see only a gradual transition and not an instant one. I'm reminded of the production triangle where each corner represents "fast", "cheap", and "good" respectively, and we can only choose two. This could be inaccurate to the conversation, yet it sounds as though peaceful parenting/self-knowledge/ethics-based relationships would occupy the "good" and "cheap" corners (where "cheap" is interpreted as generally less expensive than, say, an armed rebellion in terms of life/property/opportunity cost). Although it would be swell to see a peaceful society at large in our lifetimes, If slow and steady will win this race, then it will be worth it for peoples in the future.
Josh F Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Anything publicly owned should be auctioned and the proceeds divided up democratically. Any business whose property claims are based on government force, like Exxon's ownership of an oil rig for example, should remain owned by the shareholders but lose their protections. Exxon would no longer exist as a legal entity, but the shareholders do remain.
Josh F Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Most of the existing bonds are less than 30 years old because they stop earning interest... and a significant portion of most people's long-term savings has some exposure to bonds. It is simply acknowledging reality to hope that real people get some of the proceeds of selling off a country's assets, whether that's a legitimate entity or not. After all, what sort of money are you using to sell off those assets anyway, if we're going to pick nits. In a stateless society, the US dollar will be meaningless anyways.
Phillip Brix Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 ..."Therefore, today's private property is all illegitimately owned." - Do you agree? not really no. if i'm forced at gun point to gamble, but i win, i don't owe the money to anyone, even though i wouldn't have gambled without the gun. Question 2) Once a stateless society emerges, who owns what? Do we abandon all current ownerships and collect private property in a giant free-for-all? so private poperty should primarly be based on a common law mentality. if you aquired a good though voluntary exchange, then its yours unitll you sell it or give it away. a more difficult question would be things like public land or buildings, who do they belong to? i would surmise the highest bidder.
Recommended Posts