consent, coercion and the nap

[LibertarianSocialist]

Hey guys, anarchist of the old kind here, first post.

 

My question is, how would a propertarian society deal with the concept of coercion within the framework of the nap? Say a child had been orphaned in a freak accident, with no known relatives, and was forced to seek employment on terms reflecting their precarious position, would this be considered consensual despite a good deal of coercion being involved?

 

Furthermore, should an individual choose to reject in their lifetime, as many anarchists do, the concept of private property on the grounds that they could not consent to the original appropriations due to them having occurred before their birth, but are nevertheless expected to suffer them, surely this legal imposition is a violation of the nap? This argument being centered around the lockean proviso.

[Mister Mister]

Hello.  Can you tell me what anarchist means to you?  For me Libertarian Socialist was always a confusing term, as it seems to be a contradiction.  Anarchist as I understand means "without rulers".  This means nobody is "Above the Law", that disputes between members of the society must be resolved according to rules which apply to everyone.  The basic economic reality that the scarcity of resources outweighs human desire means that there will be disputes over the exclusive use of resources.  Property rights are a means of resolving such disputes in a consistent and reasonable way.  As I understand, the concern of the Leftist Anarchists is that owners of property are like rulers, is that right?

In your scenario, I'm not sure what you mean by coercion.  It is a tragic circumstance yes.  But I don't understand how such an extreme, tragic, hypothetical situation invalidates the idea of property and voluntary association and trade.  Let's say that there was concern for this child, as there most certainly would be given that some portion of the population is compassionate.  Then there would be resources available to house, feed, clothe, and educate the child.  There may be couples who are gay or infertile and willing to adopt such a child.  Especially in the absence of government programs, usually which take 70% or more of the money in overhead, there would be plenty of resources available to help those needy.  But in many charity cases, it is not so clear who is needy and who is not, and as I have come to understand through Stef and others like Thomas Sowell, institutionalized charity for those who don't necessarily need it can be a very dangerous drug0.  Stories like this are as rare and extreme as the conservatives' stories of the crack-dealing welfare queen.
 

Furthermore, should an individual choose to reject in their lifetime, as many anarchists do, the concept of private property on the grounds that they could not consent to the original appropriations due to them having occurred before their birth, but are nevertheless expected to suffer them, surely this legal imposition is a violation of the nap? This argument being centered around the lockean proviso.

So the idea is, if someone acquires property before you are born, and you don't recognize their ownership of that property, and choose to claim it as your own, and they use violence against you in defense of it, this is a violation of the NAP?  Hrmmm...I sympathize with this, I really do.  In the same way I generally consider taxation a violation of the NAP, and even though the majority of the society agrees with it, I resent that by acting on my disagreement, violence would be unjustly used against me.  The difference is that property can be universalized, applied to everyone, whereas taxation requires separating people into state and citizen; also taxation is an unchosen positive obligation, which is basically impossible to philosophically justify, whereas property rights depends on a set of negative obligations, i.e. "don't steal, pollute, vandalize, trespass, defraud", etc...
Also, I find your use of the language very confusing, and misleading, "nevertheless expected to suffer them", "legal imposition", etc.  The ownership of property is a concept, a standard that society has, a free society would teach this to children both by instruction, i.e., "don't grab, ASK", but more importantly by example, and allow them to question it, but for most kids it is not that hard to get, so long as their person and property is respected.  But the way you frame it, it sounds like, having this standard is automatically a crime against everyone who disagrees with it.  The question is whether the standard is reasonable, whether it is valid or not.  If a society generally believes in evolution, they are not committing a crime against the minority that believes in Creationism.  Also the Creationist is wrong.  If you disagree, please make your case.  But we maintain that there is a rational, objective way to determine these things, that can be taught to children without the use of force, and therefore generally observed and respected in society without the need for force in most cases.

 

Yes, physical force can be used in defense of property, but only in extremes.  You don't just get to shoot a Jehovah's Witness who rings your doorbell, or some lost hikers who wander into the woods in your back yard.  Property rights exist to AVOID violence which is so common throughout the animal kingdom, and human history, not to justify violence as you and many leftist anarchists claim.

Obviously, if you want to acquire property for yourself, you want the society at large to recognize it - ownership is just a concept, right?  So you wouldn't want to acquire property in a way considered illegal by the society, because even if you win the violent confrontation with the owner, you will be seen as a criminal.  So an ideal society would have an easily accessible, peaceful, and reasonable means of resolving these disputes.  The Common Law Homesteading Principle described by Locke and others, to which I think you are referring, offers a reliable way to sort these things out, though future societies may evolve better ways, through advances in philosophy and technology.  All such methodologies, however, would follow from the necessity for principles to be logical, consistent, universal, communicable, and derived from the empirical reality of Self-Ownership.

 

The truth is, not everyone wants to own property.  Some people want to travel.  Some people like renting.  Ownership, especially in a free society (not the modern-day corporatocracy of limited liabilty), entails a great deal of responsibility that many would not wish to assume.  Leftists believe that others' ownership is somehow only to their own selfish benefit, at the expense of everyone else's.  Sometimes this is true, like when someone buys the house you wanted.  But in many more ways, private ownership benefits others who do not own said property.  The free market is 5% competition and 95% cooperation, and even the competition involved is peaceful unlike in Nature or in politics.

I hope that helps

[LibertarianSocialist]

Anarchism is a rejection of all forms of hierarchical organisation on the grounds that any privileged groups or individuals will inevitably further their own interests at the expense of others. We reject the concept of private property on the ground that it allows for a minority of individuals to lay claim to property well in excess of what he would receive were each man given an equal portion. Given resource scarcity, private ownership inevitably results in some owning property at the expense of others, functionally enabling an exploitative class based system with all its trappings.

Much of my argument against private property revolves around the Lockean Proviso.

 

What I mean by coercion is all those ulterior factors that influence the decision to consent to or reject a proposal. Why I emphasise this is because it represents an important ethical concept. If a man has laid claim to an oasis in a vast desert, and I come to him dying of thirst, and he only agrees to sell me water if I promise the rest of my life to him in servitude, surely he is acting immorally, even if the gun at my head is not his, but rather my own needs, which are prevented from being met by his existence nevertheless.

These are extreme scenarios to be sure, but represent exaggerations of very real dilemmas faced everyday under a system of private property.

 

I do have issue with the argument about evolution/creationism in that property rights are an exclusive ideology. You either have private property or you don't. Making the assumption (emphasis on assumption) that the lockean proviso invalidates property as harmful to those without property, we must concede that they are forced into a harmful (to them) ideology.

 

The ownership of capital is generally always desirable otherwise mankind would not be one giant edifice to its acquisition. Certainly to say that individuals should not be entitled to their fair share of the worlds limited wealth on the grounds that they would either not want it or do better if someone else owned it reeks of authoritarianism.

 

I have much to elaborate but will go now, neighbour kid wants me to play tennis with him, and is sweeping my house in impatience, lol.

[square4]

 

 

It is an important topic that you bring up. There is disagreement about property rights, even among anarchists, and this disagreement will probably not go away quickly. So if everyone is going to enforce its version of property rights (socialisms / capitalism), the result would not be nice. This shows the importance of finding a peaceful way to handle it.

 

Property rights simply claim what is right and wrong. These rights can be valid, without necessarily justifying its enforcement on others. But in practice, property rights are often linked to the idea that they may be enforced. People who disagree with a property right claim, may grudgingly choose to accept it, because of fear of enforcement, and the actual use of force might be very rare. But this does not alter the coercive nature of it.

 

A way towards a solution could be a civilized discussion, to come to an agreement, or at least create a better understanding of the situation and the principles of the other. If an agreement cannot be reached, the determination of property rights could be left to what communities decide, and people join or leave these communities voluntarily. This is not a complete solution, because people can still be affected by it involuntarily. Inside the community, this would be especially the children. But also people outside the community are affected by how it handles property rights. For example, if a community is located around a rich natural resource, other communities might protest against the exclusive ownership of that resource. A practical way to handle the problem can simply be non-enforcement, even when thinking to be in the right, in order to maintain peace.

[Mister Mister]

Hi thanks for the response.

 

 

Anarchism is a rejection of all forms of hierarchical organisation

 

By a rejection, do you mean morally?  I assume you don't just mean personally, because you are talking about what applies to everyone.  All forms of hierarchical organization?  What about between parents and children?  There is a natural imbalance of power here (a central idea of this show is how to prevent abuse of this power).  I work part-time as a teacher, there is an inherent authority in the relationship, because I have knowledge and expertise.  So what about the hierarchy between teacher and student?  Between doctor and patient?  Between a 10-year employee of a company and a newly hired one?  This is why libertarians make a distinction between violent, coercive, involuntary authority, and voluntary or peaceful "hierarchical" relationships.  Do you agree that there is a moral distinction here?  If not then I don't know what to say.  But if so, then the next step is to determine where property owners fit into this distinction, yes?

 

on the grounds that any privileged groups or individuals will inevitably further their own interests at the expense of others.

 

Sorry, I thought I addressed this, and here you're just restating it.  Do you mean that all actions of any human beings with choices are at the expense of others?  This is quite chilling, and speaks to your view of human nature and maybe your history.  How in this interaction, are you working to further your interests at my expense?  I would hope that we are working together to come to an understanding of what is true and false, right and wrong, not that one of us is manipulating the other.  But it is clearly not universally true.  Two people having consensual sex are pursuing their own interests, at whose expense?  I enjoy playing music in front of people.  Other people enjoy listening.  They also enjoy eating and drinking.  Certain businesses enjoy the fact that I bring people to their establishments to enjoy music, where they buy food and drink.  So everyone is working to further their own interests, but not necessarily at others' expense, in fact we know this because it is voluntary.

 

it allows for a minority of individuals to lay claim to property well in excess of what he would receive were each man given an equal portion

So there is an assumption that what would be fair would be to give each man an equal portion of property.  Who is doing the giving?  Sorry, but it kind of seems to me a child's view of the world.  There is a birthday cake called property, and the parent (i.e. State) is responsible for giving each kid an equal portion, otherwise it's unfair.  But not all property is equal.  A house on the coast of California is not equal to an acre of swampland in Louisiana is not equal to a steel mill in Detroit is not equal to a highrise in Manhattan.  Also, life is not a game that starts and stops, it is a continuum.  People are born, people die, and they make different choices in between.  Even if we distributed all the money in the world evenly, within a year it wouldn't be equal anymore - some would gamble it all away, some would start failing businesses, some would buy stuff, some would save, some would make wise investments, and so on.  So I don't know what that means.  Yes, some people own more than others.  But you speak as if there is some objective standard for how much everyone in the world should own, I don't know how you would begin to determine this.
 

 

Much of my argument against private property revolves around the Lockean Proviso.

Lockean Proviso - I had to look this up, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso  The idea is, Locke argued there should be limits on ownership, that you can only justly homestead land as long as enough is left for others, is that right?.  That's very interesting, I think I will need some time to learn more about, and process this.  But like I said, Common Law and other conventions have come up with solutions to these problems, and more solutions ought to be forthcoming in the future.  I believe it looks something like: If a tract of land is not developed within a certain amount of time, it reverts to a State of Nature, if individuals "Squat" for long enough on unused land, they can own it by law, and so on.  But you say this relates to real problems in the world - can you give an example?  If they are real problems, then why resort to extreme scenarios about oases in the desert?

 

 

I do have issue with the argument about evolution/creationism in that property rights are an exclusive ideology. You either have private property or you don't. Making the assumption (emphasis on assumption) that the lockean proviso invalidates property as harmful to those without property, we must concede that they are forced into a harmful (to them) ideology.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't more clear.  My point is that Property is a standard, a principle, which is either valid or invalid.  If you want to argue its' validity, fine.  But to say it is harmful to some people, or that some people disagree, has nothing to do with anything philosophical.  The Theory of Evolution is harmful to fundamentalist religions.  A society that protects children is "harmful" to would-be pedophiles.  And a propertarian society may be harmful to those who want something for nothing.  But I think it is true what Ayn Rand said, that "There are no real conflicts of interests between men who do not desire the unearned".  So what we really are aiming for is to raise human beings who are rational, peaceful, and understand self-ownership, that when they reach adulthood they take responsibility for their own lives and don't believe others are obligated to take care of them.

 

 

The ownership of capital is generally always desirable otherwise mankind would not be one giant edifice to its acquisition. Certainly to say that individuals should not be entitled to their fair share of the worlds limited wealth on the grounds that they would either not want it or do better if someone else owned it reeks of authoritarianism.

  Sorry, I have to call you out - "reeks of authoritarianism" is not an argument.  The fact that you can smell "authoritarianism"- kind of a vague word which you are implying equals "immoral"-in an argument does not invalidate that argument.  Again what is "a fair share of the worlds limited wealth"?  What is a "fair share"?  Is there an objective way to determine this?  And why do you say wealth is limited?  Have you ever heard of the Subjective Theory of Value?  "On the grounds that they would either not want it or do better if someone else owned" - do you mean that you ought to be able to take something from someone else if you can do better with it?  What does it mean to "do better"?  Is there some objective measure for this?  I am quite a skilled guitarist, but I don't own a very expensive instrument.  Should I be able steal a more expensive one from someone who is less skilled?

One last thing - do you recognize that we don't REALLY live in a private property system?  Sure, people are allowed some property ownership, but only so long as they pay taxes for what they own.  In other words, we are all "renting" from the government.  Also, most of the land in the world is "owned" by governments, which isn't like normal ownership, which, as I explained before, entails risk and responsibility, instead the risk and responsibility is passed on to others, usually the young.  They also can, and often do, claim private property by Eminent Domain, or sign off on projects like Oil Pipelines which have a direct effect on peoples' property, without their consent or consideration.  And finally, there are a multitude of laws controlling what kind of property you can and can't own, and how you are allowed to commit it, i.e. gun laws, drug laws, trade restrictions, licenses, regulations, and so on.  Also, are you aware of economic problems of NON-ownership?  If you're going to bring up this topic, you ought to address things such as the problem of the commons.  Thanks for the debate, I am enjoying it very much.

[LibertarianSocialist]

I should have clarified that anarchism rejects all UNJUSTIFIED authority, including hierarchical. What I mean by this is authority derived from authoritarian power structures rather than real authority. The doctor may be more qualified than me, but does he hold authority over me? I voluntarily choose to accept his authority, but is this the same authority of the statesman? The statesman imposes by force his authority, by virtue of his hierarchical position of power. Any authority objected too must bear the burden of proof, of which may be asked for by an independent jury. Another important issue that forms even a schism within anarchism is the dependency of the less able, for example your teacher-child relation. Not being able to provide ones own needs ensures an imbalance of power. An-coms therefore stress the right of each to take according to his needs as distinct from contribution, whereas other anarchists stress remuneration based on deed. I would state that all forms of hierarchical are illegitimate on the grounds that they are a result of coercion. Their are some that are more coercive than others, of course. Will we ever be free of coercion, no. But it would be morally best to remove as many forms of coercion as possible, no?

As stated, private property ensures the unequal distribution of wealth, for example, as land is finite, to take more essentially deprives the next man (atleast where land has been fully colonized). This inequality of land allows for coercion, therefore enabling coercive hierarchies of power.

 

I am not saying people ALWAYS take advantage of others for personal gain, indeed socialism, and especially communism is founded on the idea that man has an inherent capability to be altruistic. What I argue is that the need for capitalist profit seeking and accumulation mandates selfishness. One can argue businesses must provide "needed services" and so are altruistic, but is this always true? The provision of services meets one goal, to increase profitability. The externalization of costs to society (bailouts, environmental disaster, consumer base erosion) are examples of selfish profit seeking. So too is things like planned obsolescence, ingenuine marketing and artificially created market demand. Surely these cannot be considered altruistic, and all (barring bailouts which is just a symptom) are caused by market forces.

 

The distribution of property is decided by those affected. Given the anarchist belief that all wealth is social and that each man has a right to own property only in measure with his fellow man, personal property, democratically decided and based on usufruct, is the only valid solution. Distribution is entirely plastic. Where there is an abundance of natural resources, density will be higher as each man asserts his usage rights. The density of an area likely, though not necessarily, finding equilibrium in opportunity elsewhere.

 

Anarchists argue for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. It is the opportunity of man to meet his needs, whatever they may be that we seek.

 

It is true that people want different things, some would even gamble it all away. But would a man who spent all his time gambling or burning those socially owned goods for his amusement be left unchecked? Surely he would have the right to do what he would with those things he produced solely by his own labour, but where he harms others he would be punished, though such a man would likely receive therapy as clearly infirm. It is only rational that men would wish to keep all the fruits of their labour, or atleast where traded the equivalent of them. If by the end of all these "supposedly equal" exchanges he has less than when he started, surely he has been robbed, or is an altruist. Should we claim as just, impoverishment on either ground? On the nature of the subjective value of labour, is it right for a man to sell for more a product because another's need is greater? (Or buy for less to sell for more.) Surely it is coercive to profit off his desperation. The man who accepts a wage for his daily bread does so out of such desperation, not because his subjective value is greater. If he did not need to eat he would not accept anything but the full fruit of his labour, and certainly not one hours bread for two hours labour. Justifying robbery through subjective value is coercive profiteering, and certainly not consensual.

 

A more moderate example for my desert scenario would be land prices. More people, higher prices. See the latifundia of ancient Rome, peasant farmers where directly harmed by the more successful slave-operations which eventually displaced them. Those patricians where surely responsible in part for the poverty of the farmers? They did not directly harm them, but they deprived them of land in a way that was greatly harmful nevertheless.

 

My argument has everything to do with philosophy. And it is the propertarian society which wants something for nothing. The only just aquisition is that of usufruct because it requires labour. Propertarian conceptions of property ignore the lockean proviso and the fact that following generations could not possibly consent to the original aqcuisition. It functionally enables the owners to extract surplus value from the propertyless underclass through coercive artificial scarcity. It is in essence a system that justifies taking something for nothing.

 

I am aware of the constraints made by the state on private property, though it is still functionally private in enough regards to qualify.

 

The "tragedy of the commons" as I understand it is the depletion of resources as each individual of a common land seeks to maximise his own profit at the cost of all, ie. overgrazing.

This is rather an indictment of capitalistic practice. Can you not see the parallels with the current ecological destruction? The necessity of cost externalisation within competitive advantage? The incentive of short-term profit over sustainable income?

 

And this has been fun, I like this site, way better than a sympathetic site, too much of a circle jerk you know?