'Anarcho'-Capitalist slips up, admits 'force' behind private property

[IcarusAngel]

"Property is established by enforcing exclusivity of use. Your ability to own property is a direct consequence of your ability to defend it against all comers. Force is one way to defend your claim, and likely the original means of acquiring property. Mutual cooperation with other property owners is another way, but this way is more sophisticated and complex, requiring social interaction and trust. As far as I am concerned, you own property if I can't take it away from you, or at least if you can make the cost of taking it higher than the value I would gain in having it."

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=21096

There isn't ANY kind of property that couldn't be justified under such a system. Such a system allows tyranny, even if we assumed that they acquired all the property in a capitalist means, because few people could control resources.

Furthermore, dictators, monarchs, and slave owners all could use this argument to justify their "property." In fact, in a dictatorship, everything is his "private property" (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.).

Nobody would want this system, and these "ancaps" are officially crazier than even modern day, mainstream capitalists and classical-liberals.

[the questionist]

I don't understand what he means by 'direct consequence.' It almost seems that he's saying that if you cannot defend your property you have no right to own it. I'm not so sure I agree with that position.

I wouldn't take this out of context though. I don't think he was talking about the initiation of force but rather self-defense. I see the consistency in protecting your home like you would protect yourself. I think thats what the point was.

[Zurdito]

I see the consistency in protecting your home like you would protect yourself. I think thats what the point was.

let´s try translating it into that meaning, and see if it works:




"Your personal freedom is established by enforcing exclusivity of your use. Your ability to own yourself is a direct consequence of your ability to defend yourself against all comers. Force is one way to defend your claim to yourself, and likely the original means of acquiring self-ownership. Mutual cooperation with other self-owners is another way, but this way is more sophisticated and complex, requiring social interaction and trust. As far as I am concerned, you own yourself if I can't take you away from you, or at least if you can make the cost of taking you higher than the value I would gain in having you."


now is that how you would phrase a simple justification for self-defense?:confused:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Heh, therein lies a giant problem for anarcho-feudalists. A lot take up the Friedman position when they argue that our ownership of land should only be limited to force. This inevitably means the rich don't even have to abide by Locke's principle. Of course all force is required to protect one's possessions. However, one cannot come into possession of property that automatically makes me poorer, or which restricts my actions.

They also support debtor's prisons and slavery: A lot of us here do support debtor prisons as a last resort (http://click.adbrite.com/mb/click.php?sid=251381&banner_id=12462921&variation_id=1286749&uts=1221927207&cpc=302e323538&keyword_id=44512&inline=y&zk_id=2124808&ab=168165510&sscup=70cfe16fa17e524d9c33ee597a96a2d2&sscra=c25ee5a7945bf48d04d5920a93f85bd0&ub=1202335477&guid=2f1dc930447788dda09e84236e669fb8&rs=&r=) to get people to pay what they legitimately owe(particularly in cases of criminals who must pay enormous damages to their victims).

I think an excellent case could me made for the re-introduction of slavery. Not race-based slavery, but penal slavery. Instead of warehousing criminals, they could be auctioned off to private parties for such sums of money as would go to compensate the victims, less any fees, charges, court costs, etc., that were involved in capturing, adjudicating, and then processing the criminal for auction. http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=6131;sta rt=20

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ardent propertarian argues that this scenario is perfectly justifiable:

For example, if I'm encircled by private property, how do I move myself if the landlord doesn't let me cross his yard? Would it be fair if I have to work for him just to get out of his influence?

As for the landlord encircling you, I'd suggest that you were a fool to buy the property to begin with and you should sell the property to the other guy and buy property in a more sensible location.

http://politicalfever.org/political-parties-ideologies/8313-most-people-opposed-merit-9.html#post156689

Capitalist apologists say the darnedest things. Slavery! Debtor prisons! Force! No freedom! Get the picture yet? Private property is absolute - absolute bullshit.

[IcarusAngel]

LOL. :laugh:

That's hilarious.

Like any property would be available to you to "purchase" in the first place lol. And maybe you got surrounded by the property afterwords. Like everybody wants to move at the drop of a hat, or be forced into situation.

Capitalism theoretically allows tyranny, it's that simple. Leftist theories work to reject tyranny, and if someone is being tyrannical he is operating against leftist principles, and must be reigned in if the leftist society is to continue.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This an-cap tried to compensate for a similar argument, and he failed miserably:


Suppose on the other hand, one big landlord owned all the land, or owned land surrounding every person's land and claimed the right to prevent passage, and enforced his will. Then that would indeed be a monopoly. That big landlord would have the power of a socialist state, would in fact be a socialist state, and people would be right to rebel against that state, kill its rulers, and redistribute the state’s property to individuals.
If a real monopoly, not what socialists call a monopoly, but a true monopoly occurs, then all the capitalist arguments against socialism and justifying violence against socialist measures apply to that monopoly, and if that monopoly dresses itself in the clothes of property rights and voluntary agreements, then all the socialist arguments against property rights and voluntary agreements apply to the property of that particular monopoly. But when property rights are thus set aside, one always winds up killing people. Before confronting such an alleged monopoly, one needs to ask: should we be killing people, or should we be seeking an alternate source of these goods?.
http://jim.com/anarchy/roads.htm

Be forewarned: if you step on my property under anarcho-capitalism, I will shoot a three inch hole through your skull, defecate on your face, and tear off your genitalia so that I can plant it in my private road. It is my property.

[GPDP]

Shit like this is why I am convinced anarcho-capitalism will never amount to more than intellectual hair-splitting on the internet.

[JimmyJazz]

For example, if I'm encircled by private property, how do I move myself if the landlord doesn't let me cross his yard? Would it be fair if I have to work for him just to get out of his influence?

Jesus Christ...if these are the kind of anecdotes upon which they're deciding between economic systems, they're retards no matter which side they come down on.

edit: but yeah, their answer does make them even more retarded.

[Nusocialist]

Unless you describe to something like "natural" rights then it is obviously founded on force. All property rights systems(including socialist and communist ones.) are.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It underpins the larger fallacy committed by an-caps, namely that economic and social coercion should be ignored.