Ancom Argument

[sith_wampa]

I understand anarcho communism as the voluntary common ownership of the means of production. The following is a quote from some ancom I was debating. 

 

"Ancapism is a contradiction in terms. I will explain why. A state is a monopoly of force in a given area. With property you have the monopoly of force in a given area. So what is the difference? Think about it. It seems as if ancaps just want to be the rulers of their own state. And are mad that they aren't the current rulers of said state they live under."

 

Now I have ancoms say to me "capitalism requires a state" all the time. But this is the first assertion that I have been unable to refute. All I can say is that you are not forced to be on anyone's property, however if all land is owned, it's like telling someone "if you don't like this country then you can leave it."

 

Does anybody have a good response to this assertion?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A state is a coercive monopoly of force. 

[jpahmad]

Rulers and property owners are two different things.  The state, as we know it today, doesn't legitimately own any property.  That's the difference. 

 

A concept, "the state", can't own anything.  People own things.  Therefore, there is no parallel there.

[dsayers]

A state is a monopoly of force in a given area. With property you have the monopoly of force in a given area. So what is the difference?

 

I think the person meant to say monopoly on the INITIATION of the use of force. It is not true that property owners have a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. If you are my guest, I do not get to initiate the use of force against you. Also, there is a huge difference in the State and property owner because the property is owned! Anything done in the name of the State is under the assumption that the State (anthropomorphism aside) owns everything and everyone within its borders.

 

Now I have ancoms say to me "capitalism requires a state" all the time.

 

What part of them making exclusive use of their body to make this claim requires the State? They're not talking about capitalism if they think the State is a requisite. It would be like looking at a rape and saying that love making requires threats, screams, and tears. Capitalism is just another way of saying you own yourself and the effects of your actions and so does everybody else. When somebody uses the coercion of the State to erect artificial barriers to entry for example, this is not observing that would be competitors own themselves and the effects of their actions.

[TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy]

I understand anarcho communism as the voluntary common ownership of the means of production. 

 

I have always found this a strange concept. If an Anarcho-Communist system is voluntary then people must be free to opt in or out of the commune and have private property without being threatened with the use of force. Thus it is simply a voluntary market transaction within an anarchist free market. If this is not the case and those who pursue alternative systems that recognize private ownership will be threatened with force then it is Anarcho-communism which is now acting as the new government and is thus a contradiction is terms. 

 

"Ancapism is a contradiction in terms. I will explain why. A state is a monopoly of force in a given area. With property you have the monopoly of force in a given area. So what is the difference?

 

Nobody, not even on their own property can initiate the use of force if it is not in reasonable self-defense against an initiation of force. Government is predicated on the initiation of force outside of self defense - it simply is the act of taking property at gun point from those in a given geographical area. To say that owning ones body and the effects of ones actions is equivalent to this is ridiculous. It is like saying sex is rape because they both involve genitals rubbing against each other. I do not force others to pay for my property or force others to obey rules which violate the N.A.P. I can ask you to leave my property, but this is justified in the same way it is justified that I can ask you to not touch me or take my stuff. It is predicated on self-ownership, not on the initiation of force. 

All I can say is that you are not forced to be on anyone's property, however if all land is owned, it's like telling someone "if you don't like this country then you can leave it."

 

No person will own a land which instantiates rules which would violate a persons individual rights. Plus you are just as free to own property as the next person then to call other peoples right to private property around you the use of force is like saying that my success is stealing from you. This is ignoring  the fact that no rules on which my property ownership is based on will be different to those which apply to you or anyone. A government however apples rules on others which don't at the same time apply to them.

 

If anything Ancomm systems are a contradiction in terms as I already mentioned because if you enforce a rule which says that owning property is immoral then you are violating the consent of others thus acting as a state. If you allow others to own property and the effects of your actions then the Ancomm system is just like a business model offering a service to people which they can opt in to voluntarily thus it simply a type of system within a stateless free-market. 

[J. D. Stembal]

If you are debating with someone who doesn't believe in the universal validity of property rights, ask them if they have locks on their doors. If so, why?

 

If the person you are debating is female, ask them if they have property rights over their own uterus, which is part of the means of production for new people. If so, why?

 

You will very quickly find that proponents of communism do indeed value their own property rights, but not the rights of others.

[TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy]

If you are debating with someone who doesn't believe in the universal validity of property rights, ask them if they have locks on their doors. If so, why?

 

If the person you are debating is female, ask them if they have property rights over their own uterus, which is part of the means of production for new people. If so, why?

 

You will very quickly find that proponents of communism do indeed value their own property rights, but not the rights of others.

Yes this is a great point. I like to respond to anyone who makes an argument against universal property rights by asking them to give me their wallet and see what they say 

[J. D. Stembal]

Yes this is a great point. I like to respond to anyone who makes an argument against universal property rights by asking them to give me their wallet and see what they say 

 

That's a funny scenario, but it doesn't accurately examine the point of non-aggression. A person who is against property rights would assume that someone asks for money because they have a legitimate need for it. The person with the wallet full of money could very well decide that the beggar needs the money more than she does. This doesn't violate any principles of non-aggression as it is completely voluntary. However, people who argue against property rights usually condemn the wealthy as selfish because wealth is a zero sum game. The person you are debating with would simply deflect your request by claiming that you have no legitimate need for their money.

 

You need to examine how they view their own property rights in the face of the threat of aggression. Do they leave their car unlocked with the keys in the ignition so that someone who needs a set of wheels can freely borrow it? Of course not. They believe in their own property rights, just not any one else's. It would be more simple to say that because they have the capability to make an argument, they are contradicting their own argument, but no one actually understands how body property rights extend into the world around them. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is a book everyone should read. I still need to get a copy of it. I've only read excerpts off of the internet.

[sith_wampa]

Ancoms usually draw a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", where personal is the things you are immediately using, and private would be something like land. Usually they say personal is ok but private is not, although some say property is totally wrong.

 

Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. Say you have a store. Your competitor is larger and decides to legally purchase all of the land surrounding your store. Are you violating their property rights when you leave your store to go home? And more generally, how does the NAP apply to trespassing?

[TheRobin]

To answer your question backwards here: I don't think it violated the NAP at all. If people actively restrict you from accessing your property then I think you can make a good case for that not being much different than theft in a way. Imagine parking a car on a parking space and then some guy just building a stell wall around it while you're working. Given that you now can't access your car anymore you might as well not have it anymore, which would be identical to it being stolen.

Another thing is, IF the bigger store has that much more money that they can buy up the whole roadbuilding company that you have your contracts with then they're magnitudes bigger than your store already, so what do they gain that is worth it for them in the first place. The negative publicity (assuming that this is somehow legal to cut you off from your property) would cut into their profits and just because people might no longer be shopping at your store doesn't mean they will at the other one. So even from a purely economic standpoint it would be comeplete non-sense and people who act in such a way usually don't have big stores in the first place.

But most importantly, that's just not the way people actually behave unless there's a state that is justified by people. I mean, just ask what would happen if you try and do something like that in your circle of friends and see how people react. Most people understand quite well how justice and fairness works and when someone tries to be just get advantages by being a rule-lawyer then it's so obvious and met with condescension that they usually don't do that for long (or just don't have friends/business partners anymore, but then saying they got the bigger business wouldn't work either)

[Mister Mister]

  'That is interesting at first glance, but think about it a little further and it doesn't really hold up.  "Ancaps want to run their own little states"...really?  A man who builds a house for his family is the same as a King or a President or a slave-owner?  A property-owner has a monopoly on force within their property?  No, not at all.  A free society with a rational system of Law would not uphold a property-owner's right to kill, assault, rape, defraud, or steal from anyone on their property.  

 This argument that Property Ownership violates the NAP arises from a total confusion about the function of Property Rights in a Free and Rational Society.  They argue that once you own property, then you can and MUST use force to enforce those property rights.  Therefore their solution is to just have everyone own everything.

  Of course this isn't really a solution, it completely dismisses that there will be conflicts of interest over the use of certain resources.  Property rights as a concept don't exist so that landowners can shoot people, they exist as a reasonable and consistent way of resolving these conflicts that naturally arise.  In the absence of consistent and communicable principles to resolve these conflicts, they end up being resolved by force, or by some arbitrary authority.  Property is not a justification for force, it is a methodology to keep the peace.  A social ethic, a "Rule of Law", where the majority of people understand and observe integrity to a reasonable and consistent method of resolving property conflicts, is the only possible substitute for the State.

  It's always occurred to me how the majority of political conflicts come down to a conflict over property.  Taxes, abortion, drugs, gun control, environmentalism, etc., all have to do with one group of people objecting to another group's exercise of ownership.  In the absence of a public conversation about principles by which to resolve these conflicts, we end up just appealing to majority opinion.

Another point worth making is that ownership entails responsibility.  The State is very different than property because no one is ever held responsible for the actions of the State, whereas property owners are held responsible for the use of their property as a natural effect of the principle of property rights.

[J. D. Stembal]

Ancoms usually draw a distinction between "personal property" and "private property", where personal is the things you are immediately using, and private would be something like land. Usually they say personal is ok but private is not, although some say property is totally wrong.

 

Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. Say you have a store. Your competitor is larger and decides to legally purchase all of the land surrounding your store. Are you violating their property rights when you leave your store to go home? And more generally, how does the NAP apply to trespassing?

 

Instead of answering your question, I must first ask for your reasoning behind stating that this is a plausible scenario. Can you point out a specific example of this happening?