Question for libertarians: Why does communism violate the NAP?

[Azraella]

[This can be moved if this is in the wrong spot]

Seriously, I have yet to see a coherent reasoning why the NAP excludes socialism or communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

wikipedia:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

They consider private property legitimate. But then we go down that road again which has been discussed ad nauseam.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Apparently the NAP applies to property more than it does to people, but don't libertarians always give precedence to property rights over workers' rights?

[eric922]

Apparently the NAP applies to property more than it does to people, but don't libertarians always give precedence to property rights over workers' rights?

Based on what I know of Ron Paul all libertarians value property over any human rights. Ron Paul opposes abortion and gay marriage, despite being supposedly against government interference in people's lives.

[Azraella]

Based on what I know of Ron Paul all libertarians value property over any human rights.

Georgists are the obviousexample to libertarians that don't have a black and white view of property rights and some modern mutualists could fit under the right libertarian umbrella as well as they support property only through occupancy and use.

[Le Rouge]

Shouldn't this thread belong in a libertarian forum?

[Azraella]

I felt like asking here.

[RGacky3]

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

Thats the big thing right there.

The problem is legitimaly owned propery is a totally arbitrary concept, and requires violence to maintain at a level necessary for capitalism (beyond personal possessions and into capital).

The homestead principles contradicts itself, its logically incoherent (if mixing land with labor entails ownership, why does that only happen once)?

[Tim Cornelis]

Georgists are the obviousexample to libertarians that don't have a black and white view of property rights and some modern mutualists could fit under the right libertarian umbrella as well as they support property only through occupancy and use.

Then most anarcho-communists are also "right-wing libertarians" as they support occupancy and use (i.e. possession). By the way, Proudhon made it clear that he wanted to abolish property and only recognised possession when he said "instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."

[Book O'Dead]

Then most anarcho-communists are also "right-wing libertarians" as they support occupancy and use (i.e. possession). By the way, Proudhon made it clear that he wanted to abolish property and only recognised possession when he said "instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."

And that's one important point over which Marx castigated Proudhon (and rightly so).

Among organized human beings, once something is invented it cannot be "un-invented", in fact or semantically.

Instead of attempting the impossible, to abolish property, Marx suggested that we encourage or provoke its transformation from being an item of personal possession into one of social possession, democratically managed by all who wish to participate in its management, especially those most directly concerned with its disposition, i.e., the workers who created it.

Perhaps Proudhoun lacked a genuine insight regarding the origin of that self-same property he so romantically wished to see evaporate into thin air.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Libertarians in general seem to uphold private property ownership and reject socialism. I just don't see how we really have anything in common.

[Tim Cornelis]

And that's one important point over which Marx castigated Proudhon (and rightly so).

Among organized human beings, once something is invented it cannot be "un-invented", in fact or semantically.

You mean like slavery, or the state, or feudalism?

Instead of attempting the impossible, to abolish property, Marx suggested that we encourage or provoke its transformation from being an item of personal possession into one of social possession, democratically managed by all who wish to participate in its management, especially those most directly concerned with its disposition, i.e., the workers who created it.

Hey, that's weird, Proudhon wanted exactly the same!

It is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former [possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym.

Like I said, Proudhon wanted to abolish property, but not possession.

[Book O'Dead]

You mean like slavery, or the state, or feudalism?

Correct; they can be reformed, transformed or abolished, but never "un-invented".

Hey, that's weird, Proudhon wanted exactly the same!

Marx would have agreed with you. What Marx most objected to and was disappointed about in Proudhon, I think, was the notion that workers could somehow purchase back what had been stolen from them in the first place via consumer cooperatives. Moreover, Marx lamented that an otherwise bright chap like Proudhon could be so obstinately ignorant and so emphatically wrong about the origin and nature of capital.

Like I said, Proudhon wanted to abolish property, but not possession.

And like I said, once invented, you cannot abolish property per se; you can only transform it by changing possession of it.

[Azraella]

Then most anarcho-communists are also "right-wing libertarians" as they support occupancy and use (i.e. possession). By the way, Proudhon made it clear that he wanted to abolish property and only recognised possession when he said "instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."

You're missing the point. Mutualists at least of the modern variety, like Kevin Carsom blur the lines between right and left. In fact, I recall reading some articles from mutualist sympathetic ancaps and I recall the CATO institute being favorable to mutualism. The thing is is that mutualism is favorable to free markets(the tl;dr version of it is free market anti-capitalism).

I'm not saying that mutualism is a form of right wing libertarianism in of itself but rather 'some modern mutualists could fit under the right libertarian umbrella as well as they support property only through occupancy and use.' but certainly not all of them.

[Tim Cornelis]

You're missing the point. Mutualists at least of the modern variety, like Kevin Carsom blur the lines between right and left. In fact, I recall reading some articles from mutualist sympathetic ancaps and I recall the CATO institute being favorable to mutualism. The thing is is that mutualism is favorable to free markets(the tl;dr version of it is free market anti-capitalism).

I'm not saying that mutualism is a form of right wing libertarianism in of itself but rather 'some modern mutualists could fit under the right libertarian umbrella as well as they support property only through occupancy and use.' but certainly not all of them.

What defines a right-libertarian? Advocacy of private property. Mutualism want to abolish that. No mutualist could possibly be right-wing.

And ancaps who are sympathetic to mutualism probably don't understand it, because (anarcho-)communism is build on the same principles:

• Common ownership (use and occupancy)
• Workers' self-management
• Federalism
• Voluntary association

The difference being the existence of markets.

Also it is wrong to assert that mutualism = free market anti-capitalism. True, some mutalists favour free markets, but Proudhon wanted regulated markets by means of an agro-industrial federation that would cooperate as to limit the negative effects of competition.

You are implying in your post that advocacy of 'use and occupancy' (which is supported by mosts communists I presume) and/or free markets somehow could make you a right-wing socialist... It's absurd really.

Correct; they can be reformed, transformed or abolished, but never "un-invented".



Marx would have agreed with you. What Marx most objected to and was disappointed about in Proudhon, I think, was the notion that workers could somehow purchase back what had been stolen from them in the first place via consumer cooperatives. Moreover, Marx lamented that an otherwise bright chap like Proudhon could be so obstinately ignorant and so emphatically wrong about the origin and nature of capital.



And like I said, once invented, you cannot abolish property per se; you can only transform it by changing possession of it.

You are playing with semantics here. I keep tellin' ya, Proudhon wanted, like you said, possession and not property. And also the difference between "un-inventing" and abolishing is of course completely rhetorical.

[Night Ripper]

[This can be moved if this is in the wrong spot]

Seriously, I have yet to see a coherent reasoning why the NAP excludes socialism or communism.

It doesn't as long as it's voluntary.

If you and your 20 friends want to pour candle wax on each other, beat each other with whips or share collective ownership of the means of production, you're more than welcome to do so as long as you and each of your 20 friends agree with each other to do so voluntarily. However, don't include me in any of that against my will.