Freedomain Radio

Alan Chapman:

By laying his head where he chooses, a homeless person is implicitly asserting a property rights claim. He is claiming the right to lay his head in a manner to which others must yield, and claiming exclusivity over that place.

He is asserting a claim based on occupation and use, which is not the basis for most property claims.  For instance, the basis for the landlord's claim in my example is inheritance.

Alan Chapman:

What if several homeless people each want to lay their respective heads in the same location? How do you resolve this conflict?

Clearly, the first to lie there would have the prior claim.

Alan Chapman:

I do not ascribe to the notion that a person has a right to something merely because he says so.

That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that you assert that property is a right, merely because you say so. 

Alan Chapman:

Without property, the concept of homelessness is rendered null and void (as is theft).

Actually not so, in either case.  Read Proudhon, or my summary of his argument on libervis.com.  But the real point here is that the concept of justice depends on the concept of inalienable universal rights, which are in many ways the opposite of property. 

Alan Chapman:

Why do socialists invariably frame arguments in the context of some token vagrant "just passing through?"

They don't.  In my experience, they usually frame their arguments in terms of wage earners of fixed abode, traditionally factory workers.

Alan Chapman:

Does homelessness confer one with special rights not afforded to others?

Of course not.  The point about the tramp is that he refuses to accept the landlord's property claim.  Actually, although you see him as a victim, I see him as something of a hero.   As Chaohinon pointed out, most of the property in the world was acquired by violence.  The question is: why should the landlord's claim, based on historic violence, carry more weight than the tramp's claim, based on present violence?

Jalfro:

Alan Chapman:

Why is the homeless person entitled to sleep where he pleases without asking, but a landowner is not entitled to preside over the disposition of his own property?

Also, why is the homeless person homeless and why is he a drifter?

By the same token, why is a homeless person not entitled to lay his head where he chooses and why is someone entitled to claim property rights over the place where he chooses to do so?

The issue here is whether property is a natural right.  It cannot be settled by simply insisting that it is.  If you do that, I can simply continue to insist that it isn't.

To repeat: the right to life is a natural right; the right to liberty is a natural right; the right to justice is a natural right.  The right to property cannot be a natural right, as I have argued on Libervis.com.

The concept of justice does not depend upon property, but on the concept of universal rights.

Property rights rest on causality which is an universal and natural phenomenon. To own something is to control it exclusively by virtue of being its cause. You control your own body and therefore your actions. Your actions cause things to come into existence or your posession. If you go into the forest (assuming it's still unowned) and get a tree then make a chair out of it, the fact you did all those things to get a chair is the reason why the chair is yours. You caused it. It is the effect of your actions.

When you find a new land, unmarked and pristine and therefore reasonably assumed to be unowned, and put yourself to work on it, mark it as your own, put a fence and assume responsibility for it, these actions are what causes this land to come under your control, your defense and your maintenance. If you trade something you have with another your words (fundamentally also actions) and expressions cause a mutual understanding between you and the trading party that the control (ownership has been transfered).

You cannot deny causality. Without it everything you see would be dead, frozen in time, if time would even exist. This is also the reason I find the idea that property is unnatural and nonexistant outside of the mind or dependent on the state, simply unfathomable. From every single breath I take to all of that I do from day to day to all that I desire to accomplish in my life it is all inextricably dependent upon property and it all proves its existence to me. Without it I wouldn't exist and to the extent to which I would deny myself it I would be a slave.

I don't see any meaning in liberty without property aside from vague assignments of arbitrary "rights". Why not ask yourself the question "why" more often? Why exactly does the right to life exist objectively? Why exactly does an individual have the right to choose for himself, objectively? What then is "liberty"? Try to think objectively, without making any assumptions that don't follow directly from empirical observation of reality through your untamed senses. In the process of causality you can find property and with it "liberty".

Here are some hints. Nothing in nature, as you can observe, denies itself its nature. A flower will grow into full bloom taking as much energy from the sun and the ground as it needs. The energy becomes a part of the flower, its "property". Have you ever heard characteristics of a particular object described as the "properties" of the object? Well, it makes sense, because those really are the properties of the object. The effects of the object, what defines the object and what reflects the action-reaction chain of events it underwent to become what it is.Those properties are what the object owns. For instance, the flower owns its leaves and colors. But it doesn't own the sentience, the capability to claim these and defend it, nor does it own the ability to care. Thus we safely take the flower and make the flower itself as part of a larger property, the properties of a human individual, one who does own the capability to claim this ownership upon recognizing it, defend it and care about it.

An animal who hunts for food often defends its prey from other animals, even of the same specie. Why? Because it hunted it down and thus it deserves to control, to own it, to eat it - it is its property. Many other animals exhibit territorial urges as if saying "I found this land, or the shadow of this tree, I kept it safe from predators, therefore it is mine." All ownership in nature comes down to causality. A being X caused Y therefore Y is X's property.

You can hardly argue with causality and you can hardly argue with self consistence and a lack of self denial expressed by all objects of nature. They just are. A rock occuppies a particular amount of time and space. It essentially "owns" that time and space, and the particles and energy that flow through it. Animals can control more than their own bodies therefore they own more of time and space. Humans can control even more and even more precisely.

Your misunderstanding fundamentally comes from treating property as the cause of all worlds problems rather than coercion inherent in such organizational structures as is the state. This appears to be Proudhon's problem as well. Yes, you see so much poverty, but why do you assume it is all the fault of the capitalists when it is precisely statists and their coercion which perpetrate anti-market action. Remember, markets are about voluntary trade, not coercion. Every single coercive act is an act that corrupts the market. Who then would you blame for the corruption of our markets to the point at which they collapse at the backs of the poor? Property owners who trade fairly between each other or those who exercise coercion and utter disregard for people's dignitiy, consent and property?

I wrote something about how the state creates poverty in this article:
7 ways government screws up the economy.

As for Proudhon founding "anarchism", sure.. but those of us who recognize his flaws when it comes to his irrational view of property call this typical anarchism as anarcho-socialism, because it is ultimately about somehow collectivizing the wealth by completely or partly denying property. It's ironic you think property requires the state yet I've seen no way in which you'd resolve this collectivization of wealth other than establishing a state. Who will decide who gets to use what and when? Who will decide the fair price of labor? Who will produce if they cannot keep their profits and who will enforce all of this? I've been playing defense so far.. Maybe it's time for you to explain how exactly, in precise terms, do you think justice will be made in your anarchy and how will you able to accomplish it without violating people's consent?

Jalfro:

He is asserting a claim based on occupation and use, which is not the basis for most property claims.

No, his claim is based upon "because he says so." Anything he does necessarily entails occupation and use. Absent context, occupation and use are meaningless and do not confer a person with any moral imperative to act or claim rights.

Jalfro:

For instance, the basis for the landlord's claim in my example is inheritance.

If occupation and use constitute sufficient justification for a rights claim then the lanlord's inheretance claim would be rendered moot by virtue of his occupation and use.

Jalfro:

Clearly, the first to lie there would have the prior claim.

Why the first person as opposed to a subsequent person?

Jalfro:

I am saying that you assert that property is a right, merely because you say so.

I claim that property is a right because it's impossible to exist without exclusivity when confronted with scarcity.

Jalfro:

Read Proudhon, or my summary of his argument on libervis.com.

I read through a thread on that site in which you participated and I find your arguments to be sophistic.

Jalfro:

...although you see him as a victim, I see him as something of a hero.

I do not see him as a victim.

Jalfro:

As Chaohinon pointed out, most of the property in the world was acquired by violence.

This is really a red herring.

Jalfro:

The question is: why should the landlord's claim, based on historic violence, carry more weight than the tramp's claim, based on present violence?

The problem is that this question is loaded. One person's violence does not carry more weight than another's, but the lack of context makes any potential reconciliation of the parties' conflicting interests virtually impossible.

memeverse:

Property rights rest on causality which is an universal and natural phenomenon. To own something is to control it exclusively by virtue of being its cause.

How does this follow?  To cause something is not necessarily to control it.  Otherwise, how could we cause accidents?

I can see a natural justice argument in saying that if someone makes something they should own it, but this is not the basis of most property claims.

Besides, you didn't make the tree, so how can you own the wood?

memeverse:

When you find a new land, unmarked and pristine and therefore reasonably assumed to be unowned, and put yourself to work on it, mark it as your own, put a fence and assume responsibility for it, these actions are what causes this land to come under your control, your defense and your maintenance.

The problem with this idea is that it never happens.  (Or, at least it hasn't happened for thousands of years.)  Where people have made this kind of claim, it has been made as part of an imperialist adventure, such as when the Native Americans were robbed of the land by European settlers.  Incidently, these shows the immorality of property claims and demonstrates that theft precedes property.  The Native Americans did not recognise property and therefore allowed the Europeans to settle on land that they were not using.  It was never intended that they should have a property title to it, only occupation and use.  Basically, the Europeans imposed their property claims by violence.  Following your logic, the whole of North America belongs to the few remaining descendents of these original inhabitants. 

I don't blame the settlers.  Like you, they were incapable of understanding that their idea of private property is not the only way of looking at things.  If you could understand that, you would see that to impose the idea of property is just as bad/good as imposing any other idea.  In many ways you are like my tramp, you just can't understand the way the other guy sees it.

memeverse:

You cannot deny causality.

I have never attempted to.  Like you, I can't conceive of the world existing without it.  But I can easily conceive of the world existing without property, which seems to demonstrate that the link is not as strong as you believe.

memeverse:

From every single breath I take to all of that I day from day to day to all that I desire to accomplish in my life it is all inextricably dependent upon property and it all proves its existence to me. Without it I wouldn't exist and to the extent to which I would deny myself it I would be a slave.

Well this isn't surprising, since you live in a society where private property is treated as God.  And certainly, in this society, you would be a slave without it.  This is my point, those who don't have property in this society are little better than slaves.  This is contrary to liberty.

memeverse:

I don't see any meaning in liberty without property aside from vague assignments of arbitrary "rights".

Rights are neither vague nor arbitrary.  Property is.  The right to life is fundamental.  You can live without property, but you can't hold property without being alive.  Therefore life is more fundamental than property.  Therefore the right to life is more fundamental than any claim to property. 

Liberty is the right to live as we choose and the responsibility to choose how we live.  Liberty is what makes life worth living.  Therefore, liberty is as fundamental as life itself.

memeverse:

The energy becomes a part of the flower, its "property".

You still can't distinguish between person and property.  Remember my threat!

memeverse:

Have you ever heard characteristics of a particular object described as the "properties" of the object? Well, it makes sense, because those really are the properties of the object.

This is a totally different use of the term property and is not helpful at all.

memeverse:

An animal who hunts for food often defends its prey from other animals, even of the same specie. Why? Because it hunted it down and thus it deserves to control, to own it, to eat it - it is its property. Many other animals exhibit territorial urges as if saying "I found this land, or the shadow of this tree, I kept it safe from predators, therefore it is mine.

But other animals will challenge and if they are stronger, they will take possession.  Which confirms that the basis of property is violence.

memeverse:

A being X caused Y therefore Y is X's property.

What is the source of your faith in this formulation?  It is not based on formal logic.  It cannot, by its nature be based on empircial observation.  Is it because you confuse the properties of an object with a person's proprietorial claims?  Look, the colour of my eyes is a property of my person.  I cannot sell it.  You cannot steal it.  I did not make it.  It is not property in the sense that we are discussing property here.

Private property is a social arrangement.  We are not beasts of the forest, still less are we flowers or rocks.  If you were to study history and anthropology you would discover that there are many different ways of ordering society than the way that we do it in our society.  You would discover that ownership can take many different forms.  Private property and communal ownership of the type discussed on this forum are only two possibilities.  Proudhon is pointing to a third.

memeverse:

Your misunderstanding fundamentally comes from treating property as the cause of all worlds problems rather than coercion inherent in such organizational structures as is the state.

I don't treat property as the cause of all the world's problems.  You seem to treat the state as the cause of them all.  Though I'm interested that you say

memeverse:

such organizational structures as is the state

perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that?

memeverse:

Every single coercive act is an act that corrupts the market.

Private property is based on coercion.  Therefore private property corrupts the market. 

memeverse:

I wrote something about how the state creates poverty in this article:
7 ways government screws up the economy.

You make some good points in this paper.  But it somewhat marred by you blind loyalty to private property.  One reason I entered into debate with you is that you seemed to be someone who thinks.  But I must say you are being very dogmatic about this point!

You really should read Proudhon.  He is not talking about the collectivization of wealth, but sharing it more fairly.  You seem to be trapped in the old Free Market Capitalism v. State Socialism debate which is one of the ways our politicians

memeverse:

Maybe it's time for you to explain how exactly, in precise terms, do you think justice will be made in your anarchy and how will you able to accomplish it without violating people's consent?

memeverse:

Maybe it's time for you to explain how exactly, in precise terms, do you think justice will be made in your anarchy and how will you able to accomplish it without violating people's consent?

Well, like I say, it's not my anarchy, but Proudhon's and I've never denied that there are problems with it.  As Ghandi remarked, it's a waste trying to devise a system that is so perfect that there will be no need for people to be good.  Personally I gave up devising systems long ago and now I restrict myself to developing principles by which such systems might be divised.  Also, it's getting late and I'm getting tired, but here's a few pointers:

1.  For a system to be just, it must be based on universal principles, that is to say they must apply equally to all.  I have stated two such principles above: the right to life and the right to liberty.  A third principle is necessary in order to settle disputes: this can only be the principle of equality as all others are partial and not universal.

2. Because the right to life and liberty is fundamental, there is a corresponding duty to order society in such a way that everyone has reasonable access to the means by which these are achieved.  Mohammed Yunus suggests that this can be achieved if entrepreneurs seek two goals: profit and social returns.  Furthermore, he has proved this method in practice.

3.  For any system to work without state power, it must be based on a strong community.  (Indeed, even the most powerful state cannot exist in the absence of any community.)  Community includes, mutual respect and responsibility, shared values and common understandings.  No market can function in the absence of community, as Adam Smith, the founder of economic thinking knew well.

4.  It is only community that can resolve the problem of law and order.  (Even the state is realising this here in the UK and we regularly have coppers coming to the door trying to be nice to us!)  If it is left to individuals to defend their own rights it inevitably means that the weakest will go to the wall, since there will always be bullies and cheats arising to prey on the weak and unwary.  I am in contact with a community in Africa where this kind of community regulation is working well.  They administer a small load fund from which members can borrow to finance their work.  If anyone tries to default they get a visit from their neighbours.  There is no violence, but plenty of plain speaking I imagine.  I don't know of a second visit ever being necessary.  The issue of community is more difficult in urban settings in the economically more developed (and consequently socially underdeveloped!) countries.  However, the web is an encouraging develepment.

5.  By the way, the Africans have an interesting take on property.  You can buy and sell land and use it as your own, but ultimately, it belongs to the tribe.  Thus, the chief can take it off you if it's felt that others need it more.  Since the chief lives in the village and derives his authority from tradition, rather than the state, he has to be careful not to abuse this power.  Another system worth thinking about is the one used by the ancient Hebrews, in which debts are forgiven every seven years.  It's difficult to imagine quite how this worked, but it did.

Just one more quicky before bed!

Alan Chapman:

his claim is based upon "because he says so

No, his claim is based on occupation and use.  Actually there are two bases here, the legitimate one of occupation and use and the one he articulates based on violence.  To say his claim is based on 'because he says so' gets us nowhere, you could just as easy say it about the landlord.

Alan Chapman:

If occupation and use constitute sufficient justification for a rights claim then the lanlord's inheretance claim would be rendered moot by virtue of his occupation and use.

Precisely!  And since each party has a claim to occupation and use, the matter should be decided on need.

Alan Chapman:

Why the first person as opposed to a subsequent person?

1. Because the first person is in occupation.

2. Because there has to be some way of deciding.

3. Because there's plenty of room elsewhere.

Alan Chapman:

I claim that property is a right because it's impossible to exist without exclusivity when confronted with scarcity.

There are better ways to handle scarcity than private property as it functions in our society.  Indeed it often causes scarcity by preventing the rational distribution of wealth.

Alan Chapman:

I find your arguments to be sophistic

Well call me names why don't you? 

Alan Chapman:

This is really a red herring

No, it's the whole point.  Property is based on coercion and coercion distorts the market.  If property was based on production as memeverse argues, I would have little quarrel with it.

Alan Chapman:

The problem is that this question is loaded

It's not a gun, it's an example.  If you want to give a counter example, fine let's discuss it.  But this one is designed to make a particular point.

Alan Chapman:

One person's violence does not carry more weight than another's

Precisely.  And you have no other way of settling the matter.  I've given plenty of context.  What more do you need?  Think it through.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

Property rights rest on causality which is an universal and natural phenomenon. To own something is to control it exclusively by virtue of being its cause.

How does this follow?  To cause something is not necessarily to control it.  Otherwise, how could we cause accidents?

Definitions of control (wiktionary, Merriam-Webster) include even just a mere influence over something and all of them inevitably involve an action that causes a particular reaction. Objectively speaking, intention doesn't matter when it comes to control so accidents count as well. People tend to commonly say that somebody "lost control" over a car, but objectively all that happened is that the driver lost a degree of control necessary to operate the car safely, but the car wouldn't be in the place and time at which it was if not for the driver's prior actions so some degree of responsibility for an effect (such as an accident) is still there, even if it is somebody else who did more to contribute to it.

So when I speak of control I speak of acting. Control may be just another word for a series of actions that cause intentionally or not a series of effects.

Jalfro:

I can see a natural justice argument in saying that if someone makes something they should own it, but this is not the basis of most property claims.

If prior cause doesn't underpin a property claim then the claim is invalid. However, this doesn't deny trade. All trade means is that somebody who did make something or came first and improved upon it voluntarily transfered control and responsibility over it to someone else in exchange for something else. The new owner then has all the control of the old owner since the old owner relinquished it. This then allows many people to acquire property solely by trading what they already have.

Jalfro:

Besides, you didn't make the tree, so how can you own the wood?

By being the first human to take action meant to make use of it. You're the first one who caused the tree to become a material for what you're making.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

When you find a new land, unmarked and pristine and therefore reasonably assumed to be unowned, and put yourself to work on it, mark it as your own, put a fence and assume responsibility for it, these actions are what causes this land to come under your control, your defense and your maintenance.

The problem with this idea is that it never happens.  (Or, at least it hasn't happened for thousands of years.)  Where people have made this kind of claim, it has been made as part of an imperialist adventure, such as when the Native Americans were robbed of the land by European settlers.  Incidently, these shows the immorality of property claims and demonstrates that theft precedes property.  The Native Americans did not recognise property and therefore allowed the Europeans to settle on land that they were not using.  It was never intended that they should have a property title to it, only occupation and use.  Basically, the Europeans imposed their property claims by violence.  Following your logic, the whole of North America belongs to the few remaining descendents of these original inhabitants. 

That Native Americans didn't recognize property cannot change the fact that they owned their land, at least the land they lived on, maintained and used. Come to think of it my basis of property ownership isn't so far from yours about posession and use, with the key difference being that you think that upon departure or cesation of occupation, it ceases to be yours and others get to just come in and take it (the fruits of your labor). Natives effectively homesteaded some lands in North America by the same principle I was describing in the quoted text. Their problem was apparently that they were like you and thus allowed Europeans to take their land instead of protecting it.

Thus the example of Native Americans should serves as a good albeit sad warning of what happens when you deny yourself property rights. According to your own philosophy, Europeans were right to occupy the unused land. They just weren't right to keep it as their property, not because they essentially stole it from the natives, but because according to you nobody has the right to property. But reality flies in the face of such thinking.

And just to be clear, I do agree that Europeans stole much of Native American land, not for the reasons you state though, but because I don't think natives need to claim their property for it to be their property on the basis of their actions. Their big mistake was failing to defend such property due to their failure to recognize their property as such.

Jalfro:

I don't blame the settlers.  Like you, they were incapable of understanding that their idea of private property is not the only way of looking at things.  If you could understand that, you would see that to impose the idea of property is just as bad/good as imposing any other idea.  In many ways you are like my tramp, you just can't understand the way the other guy sees it.

I think I understand enough to realize logical inconsistencies and contradictions with empirical reality when I see them. You call it an imposition of an idea and I call it objective reality. Do you believe such a thing doesn't exist? Because if it does then ultimately some ideas are going to be closer to reality than others and the closer they resemble reality the harder it is to fight their consequences. Take, for instance the law of gravity. When we conceptualize gravity in our minds we are talking about an idea. Suppose there are some people who do not believe in the idea of gravity and I'm trying to convince them that it exists so that they don't jump off of cliffs and skyscrapers thinking they'll just fly away. Is the fact they're gonna die an imposition of my idea or simply an effect of reality being at play due to the fact that, regardless of what your ideas are, gravity exists?

That's what I think about property. You can deny it, but you cannot escape its consequences, just as unfortunately Native Americans couldn't. They refused to protect the fruits of their own actions. After who knows how many centuries of caring for their land they just let it slide to the Europeans. That's not how you protect liberty. Without property, liberty is nil.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

You cannot deny causality.

I have never attempted to.  Like you, I can't conceive of the world existing without it.  But I can easily conceive of the world existing without property, which seems to demonstrate that the link is not as strong as you believe.

Or it may just as well be that you don't realize the link yet and misunderstand property. The latter is especially obvious from your insistance to equate property with a mere claim rather than a consequence of actions and think of the state as a necessary agent of property, none of which is true. It's obvious that when you talk about property you don't speak about the same thing I understand it to be, and thus you oppose it.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

From every single breath I take to all of that I day from day to day to all that I desire to accomplish in my life it is all inextricably dependent upon property and it all proves its existence to me. Without it I wouldn't exist and to the extent to which I would deny myself it I would be a slave.

Well this isn't surprising, since you live in a society where private property is treated as God.  And certainly, in this society, you would be a slave without it.  This is my point, those who don't have property in this society are little better than slaves.  This is contrary to liberty.

Everybody has property, at the very minimum their own self and the fruits of their labor. Nobody can be blamed, however, if you refuse to take ANY action necessary to produce or acquire more property.

And again, society and their beliefs have nothing to do with property. It isn't dependent on belief.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

I don't see any meaning in liberty without property aside from vague assignments of arbitrary "rights".

Rights are neither vague nor arbitrary.  Property is.  The right to life is fundamental.  You can live without property, but you can't hold property without being alive.  Therefore life is more fundamental than property.  Therefore the right to life is more fundamental than any claim to property.  

Liberty is the right to live as we choose and the responsibility to choose how we live.  Liberty is what makes life worth living.  Therefore, liberty is as fundamental as life itself.

Again, property isn't based on "claim". And what you're saying doesn't quite follow. Your own body is your most basic property as your ability to live depends on your ability to exclusively control it. That's in fact what objectively life is.  As I keep saying, liberty without property is nonexistent.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

The energy becomes a part of the flower, its "property".

You still can't distinguish between person and property.  Remember my threat!

I can distinguish between a person and the rest of the universe while I am focusing on the person just as much as I can distinguish between a flower and the universe when focusing on a flower, but I know that all persons and all flowers are a part of the same universe with same laws applying to them. Actions cause reactions and in that sense reactions are owned by, actions. A person is nothing more than a set of processes, that is actions and reactions. Some of our processes are automatic and some are conscious. Whichever part of our conscious mind defines our distinct self is the part that causes our actions as individual persons. That self is what owns those actions of the self. This is just another way to yet again try to point out self ownership. The fact you own yourself means nobody else can own you, unless you can somehow completely relinquish control of your mind to another mind.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

Have you ever heard characteristics of a particular object described as the "properties" of the object? Well, it makes sense, because those really are the properties of the object.

This is a totally different use of the term property and is not helpful at all.

Well that's unfortunate because I said so precisely so it helps you perhaps see the way I am thinking about property in terms of objective reality. It may seem like a totally different use of the term, but it makes sense in the context I'm using it. Those properties or characteristics of an object are also effects of certain causes. Again, it's causality or action and reaction. The object developed those characteristics itself and thus it owns them. Do you see now what I mean?

Jalfro:

memeverse:

An animal who hunts for food often defends its prey from other animals, even of the same specie. Why? Because it hunted it down and thus it deserves to control, to own it, to eat it - it is its property. Many other animals exhibit territorial urges as if saying "I found this land, or the shadow of this tree, I kept it safe from predators, therefore it is mine.

But other animals will challenge and if they are stronger, they will take possession.  Which confirms that the basis of property is violence.

You said posession, not property and it is your philosophy which seems to be all about temporary posession, not property. This forceful taking of possession over what someone already took is what I call theft, but there is no morality in the "animal kingdom". They don't seem capable of providing conscious consent. This is probably why humans find it morally justifiable to own animals (or even in your own view take possession of them).

Jalfro:

memeverse:

A being X caused Y therefore Y is X's property.

What is the source of your faith in this formulation?  It is not based on formal logic.  It cannot, by its nature be based on empircial observation.  Is it because you confuse the properties of an object with a person's proprietorial claims?  Look, the colour of my eyes is a property of my person.  I cannot sell it.  You cannot steal it.  I did not make it.  It is not property in the sense that we are discussing property here.

I'm simply clarifying the basis of property. Not all property can neccessarily be sold. If it can't then that's just how it is. But I tried to ask myself the question "why" with regards to property. Why do I think I own this computer or why do I think I own a house should I buy one? If I cannot find an answer within objective observation of reality then maybe the concept is flawed, yet that is too unlikely given that my own personal natural urges, not just cultural upbringing but instincts, make me protective of that which I earned (caused by my own actions). So that's where I looked and that's what I'm exploring. That's the causality. I caused Y therefore I own it seems like stating the obvious when you consider that "to own" means "to control" and that "to control" means "to take action that causes". That's why the formula works.

The formula might as well then be rephrased without a change in meaning to say: "A being X "owned" Y therefore Y is it's property".

Jalfro:

Private property is a social arrangement.  We are not beasts of the forest, still less are we flowers or rocks.  If you were to study history and anthropology you would discover that there are many different ways of ordering society than the way that we do it in our society.  You would discover that ownership can take many different forms.  Private property and communal ownership of the type discussed on this forum are only two possibilities.  Proudhon is pointing to a third.

I don't think private property is a social arrangement. I think social arrangements are merely a result of how we treat property. Recognizing property and thus striving to abolish all theft is a way to a harmonious social arrangement. There sure have been many social arrangements, but that says nothing about which is the one most harmonious and most consistent with objective reality. It just means many people had many ideas.

As for ownership taking many different forms, I don't think so. It may happen only in the same sense that a gravity may be represented in many different forms, but fundamentally it is always the same thing and the same fundamental process. Same is with property. Cause and effect always happens the same way fundamentally. Now who caused what and when is where the fun is. Communal ownership is impossible because two persons cannot causes the precise same event at the same time and space just as two people can't occupy the same time and space.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

Your misunderstanding fundamentally comes from treating property as the cause of all worlds problems rather than coercion inherent in such organizational structures as is the state.

I don't treat property as the cause of all the world's problems.  You seem to treat the state as the cause of them all.  Though I'm interested that you say

memeverse:

such organizational structures as is the state

perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that?

I say that because state is only one form of coercive organization. I don't oppose the state for its own sake alone. My opposition of the state is just a consequence of my more fundamental opposition to all coercion. I oppose the state then just as much as I oppose any violent gang that may be roaming the streets or any corporation or company that deals in underhanded "business" such as secret threats of violence, extortion and fraud. I don't care how you organize coercion, if it's coercion I oppose it. Typically in most countries you have a mafia on top we call the state and mafias on the "bottom" which we call just "mafias". To me there's no difference between them whatsoever aside from the one being popular and "legitimate" in the eyes of the public (through deception and fraud) whereas the other isn't.

I don't think however that defending yourself from coercion is actually coercion and I consider defending your property to be defending yourself. Your property is by virtue of your actions an extension of your self.

Jalfro:

memeverse:

Every single coercive act is an act that corrupts the market.

Private property is based on coercion.  Therefore private property corrupts the market. 

As I tried to explain with pretty much everything I said so far you cannot even be alive without property. Defending it is defending yourself, not coercing another. That said, just to note, I find the statement that "private property corrupts the markets" to be almost oxymoronic since the market is entirely based on the notion of private property and has in US brought wonders of wealth, even despite all the state corruption. Whenever there is a voluntary interaction between two individuals, wealth is made (each pursues *more* value).

Jalfro:

memeverse:

I wrote something about how the state creates poverty in this article:
7 ways government screws up the economy.

You make some good points in this paper.  But it somewhat marred by you blind loyalty to private property.  One reason I entered into debate with you is that you seemed to be someone who thinks.  But I must say you are being very dogmatic about this point!

I'm not trying to be dogmatic. I'm trying to base my beliefs in empirical observation of objective reality and logical consistency, not just subjective conjecture. That's where my ideas on property largely come from. I'm in fact often overly concerned about whether I'm seriously missing something, as expressed in this thread, but the positive outcome is that I tend to think things through trying to apply logic and senses.

memeverse:

You really should read Proudhon.  He is not talking about the collectivization of wealth, but sharing it more fairly.  You seem to be trapped in the old Free Market Capitalism v. State Socialism debate which is one of the ways our politicians

memeverse:

Maybe it's time for you to explain how exactly, in precise terms, do you think justice will be made in your anarchy and how will you able to accomplish it without violating people's consent?

keep us from getting anywhere.  Why not have a Free Market Socialism v. State Capitalism debate, for instance?

Maybe I will read Proudhon at some point, though your representation of his ideas (and others' as well) doesn't really inspire confidence nor motivate me to read more of it. One of the biggest problems is that you conflate the free market with corporatism, as do many anarcho and state socialists. You did that again in a reply on Libervis.com by mentioning Microsoft. Those sorts of misunderstandings to me are very basic and seem too telling to take your philosophy seriously because it reveals in plain sight the bias that you operate on, which is blaming property for the way corporations are today instead of the state, completely oblivious to the fact that today's market isn't a free market (precisely because of state), that corporations aren't the kind of private companies that would exist in a free market but rather extensions of the state and the fact that the state has nothing to do with the existence of property (they merely claim to be, but they're the biggest violator of property rights).

That said, I'm curious about how exactly would Free Market Socialism work? To me it's, as mentioned, nearly oxymoronic because the term "market" implies voluntary trade of things which are owned, thus depending on property, yet socialism denies property rights. How do you conduct trade if there is no property?

Jalfro:

memeverse:

Maybe it's time for you to explain how exactly, in precise terms, do you think justice will be made in your anarchy and how will you able to accomplish it without violating people's consent?

Well, like I say, it's not my anarchy, but Proudhon's and I've never denied that there are problems with it.  As Ghandi remarked, it's a waste trying to devise a system that is so perfect that there will be no need for people to be good.  Personally I gave up devising systems long ago and now I restrict myself to developing principles by which such systems might be divised.  Also, it's getting late and I'm getting tired, but here's a few pointers:

It is also said that if one person could devise an entire system that would be the biggest proof for the possibility of a perfect dictatorial state, so I agree with you. However, it may still be useful to conduct thought experiments with the purpose of testing your current principles and theories in hypothetical scenarios as means of identifying potential contradictions and flaws. So just coming up with a principle isn't enough.

Jalfro:

1.  For a system to be just, it must be based on universal principles, that is to say they must apply equally to all.  I have stated two such principles above: the right to life and the right to liberty.  A third principle is necessary in order to settle disputes: this can only be the principle of equality as all others are partial and not universal.

Aside from already mentioned dependence I see between liberty, life and property, I wonder about the basis of this principle of equality and also how exactly could it be used to settle a dispute. I need an example. From what I could observe so far most people are not equal. Sure genetically we're all 99% the same, but the remaining 1% makes a difference between a person passionate about extreme sports, for instance and a person passionate about writing computer code. They'd likely have completely different values and preferences, as well as skills and abilities. Few people are actually equal. So how do you settle a dispute on the basis of equality? What role does equality play there?

Jalfro:

2. Because the right to life and liberty is fundamental, there is a corresponding duty to order society in such a way that everyone has reasonable access to the means by which these are achieved.  Mohammed Yunus suggests that this can be achieved if entrepreneurs seek two goals: profit and social returns.  Furthermore, he has proved this method in practice.

Eh, when somebody starts talking about "duty" all kinds of alarms go off in my head, especially when it comes from an anarchist. Duty as I see it translates to a positive obligation and I don't see no way of enforcing positive obligations other than by coercive authoritarian means, such as abusive parents or the state. Anyway, who orders the society according to this "duty"? If they're supposed to order themselves who makes sure everyone follows this duty? What do you do to companies whom are perceived to be pursuing only profit and not social returns?

Though as a side note to really profit in a free market (thus without fraud and coercion being legitimized) you have to provide something others value so pursuing profit seems entirely dependent on providing "social returns".

Jalfro:

3.  For any system to work without state power, it must be based on a strong community.  (Indeed, even the most powerful state cannot exist in the absence of any community.)  Community includes, mutual respect and responsibility, shared values and common understandings.  No market can function in the absence of community, as Adam Smith, the founder of economic thinking knew well.

I don't see how property ruins that. Anarcho-capitalist Free Market doesn't in any way disrupt formation of communities.

Jalfro:

4.  It is only community that can resolve the problem of law and order.  (Even the state is realising this here in the UK and we regularly have coppers coming to the door trying to be nice to us!)  If it is left to individuals to defend their own rights it inevitably means that the weakest will go to the wall, since there will always be bullies and cheats arising to prey on the weak and unwary.

Community is nothing more than a group of individuals. Individuals don't have to leave defense all to themselves individually, but can agree to cooperate with each other. I see nothing wrong with that and I still don't see how property ruins that possibility.

Jalfro:

I am in contact with a community in Africa where this kind of community regulation is working well.  They administer a small load fund from which members can borrow to finance their work.  If anyone tries to default they get a visit from their neighbours.  There is no violence, but plenty of plain speaking I imagine.  I don't know of a second visit ever being necessary.  The issue of community is more difficult in urban settings in the economically more developed (and consequently socially underdeveloped!) countries.  However, the web is an encouraging develepment.

Who are "they"? Be more precise. Are they all managers of the same fund at the same time, like shareholders or stakeholders? If so, have they all voluntarily agreed to participate in this fund? This is crucial. If not and someone in this community doesn't give to the fund are they forced to give? Also, what happens to those who default and still don't listen to the neighbors, wouldn't force then be used? Finally, what happens with the product's of the work being financed? According to your philosophy, as soon as it's not used it's fair game for the taking...no sale or anything.

Jalfro:

5.  By the way, the Africans have an interesting take on property.  You can buy and sell land and use it as your own, but ultimately, it belongs to the tribe.  Thus, the chief can take it off you if it's felt that others need it more.  Since the chief lives in the village and derives his authority from tradition, rather than the state, he has to be careful not to abuse this power.  Another system worth thinking about is the one used by the ancient Hebrews, in which debts are forgiven every seven years.  It's difficult to imagine quite how this worked, but it did.

What exactly gives this chief the right to distribute wealth like that? Honestly, tradition would be a very weak excuse. It to me looks like one of the examples of coercive organizing I mentioned above, provided that he's willing to take the land against the will of the one he's taking it from. This is why I think even anarchist socialist societies would result with a state. You are already favorably looking at a case where there is central authority established and limited property. State presents itself as central authority and taxes people with the same justification, to share it to the needy, and the justification is also largely equivalent to tradition (people think that's how it always was and has to be) in addition to the deception of democracy.

Ok, so you're arguing from a mutualist or libertarian-socialist perspective. I read some articles last night and now I understand where you're coming from.

You've been context-dropping in order to rationalize a social arrangement under which people are free to engage in parasitism while remaining insulated from accusations of theft and vandalism.

The notion of "occupany and use" in the absense of context is meaningless tautology. Without context, any claim of a right to occupy and use something is based upon declaratory fiat, or "because I said so." The moral imperative to claim a right to act cannot be derived from the act, itself. Furthermore, any potential act necessarily entails occupation and use, and are thus incidental to the act. Claiming otherwise renders impossible the ability to evaluate any moral implications of the act, such as potential theft and vandalism, and mitigate any injustices. However, the negation of any questions of moral implication through wordplay seems to be the entire point.

Private property is a claim of exclusive control over something to which others are expected to acquiesce. Since "occupation and use" necessarily subsumes acquiescence, occupation and use constitute a property rights claim. The moral implications of an act are defined by the nature of the act and not the words coming out of one's mouth. To instist that "occpancy and use" are not a property rights claim is to deny antecedents upon which such an assertion logically rests (stolen concept fallacy).

Deciding the disposition of goods based on a person's own subjective value judgements (what you call "need") is nothing but argument from pragmatism. Pragmatism does not confer a person with the moral imperative to claim a right to act.

Jalfro:

Because there has to be some way of deciding.

Emergent property rights delineation via reciprocal consensus and internal consistency.

Jalfro:

There are better ways to handle scarcity than private property as it functions in our society. Indeed it often causes scarcity by preventing the rational distribution of wealth.

Jalfro:

Property is based on coercion and coercion distorts the market.

I'll let these zingers speak for themselves. I suggest others go read this person's many posts at the other site.

Jalfro:

Alan Chapman:

The problem is that this question is loaded

It's not a gun, it's an example.

Instead of trying to be cute, you should've looked up what a loaded question is.

I think that mutualism should be called unilateralism, because that's essentially what it is. The word "mutualism" implies agreement, but what it really means is that people are free to agree but not disagree.

I've got to hand it to the socialists. No group works harder at not working.

memeverse, you have much more patience than I do.

I'm not sure I understood mutualism.  I first encountered it when looking at francois tremblay's writings and following him to a left leaning anarchist site and read about someone who was espousing mutualism.  I did a little reading and my initial impressions were it was some kind of semi communist/labour collectivist semi parasitical arrangement.  I might be completely out of line in that though as I didn't really understand it.  

Is it the sort of thing that can be summed up easily in order for me to better understand it?

Alan Chapman:

memeverse, you have much more patience than I do.

He certainly does

cowen70:

Is it the sort of thing that can be summed up easily in order for me to better understand it?

Mutualism and anarcho-capitalism are basically the same, the difference is that mutualism is the ancient version of anarchism that stems from socialistic movements and that it has some of the prejudice of the time summed up in it (for example, the mutualists of the 19th century saw labour as the only way of creating value - thus they were against interest as if it was something "unnatural" etc). Anarcho-capitalism is of course more modern, it stems from libertarian movements and it has affiliation with the Austrian school (which of course didn't exist at the time of mutualism). Anarco-capitalists tend to reject the LTV all in all, which confuses me. Generally you notice that anarcho-capitalists tend to have more concise and comprehensible models for economic theory, whereas many of the famous mutualists just write long, heavy essays. Mutualists and anarcho-capitalists also tend to differ on their views on land ownership, rent and revolutionary ideas.

cowen70:

I'm not sure I understood mutualism.

cowen70:

Is it the sort of thing that can be summed up easily in order for me to better understand it?

See below.  Of course, to fully understand these principles, you need to follow the arguments that lead up to them.  Personally, I  don't agree with them all, but I find points 2, 5, 8 and 10 particularly convincing and points 3 and 4 particularly dodgy.  They are all worthy of serious consideration.

From pages 198-199, What is Property? by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, published by IndyPublish.com, McLean, Virginia, ISBN 1-4043-3907-8, no date:

"1. Individual possession is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrated it.  Property is the suicide of society.  Possession is a right; property is against right.  Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize the law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.

2. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself.

3. The effect of labour being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity.

4. All human labour being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary.  To speak more exactly, labor destroys property.

5. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery.

6. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged.  Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of labourers (like their rights and duties) should be equal.

7. Products are bought only by products.  Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust.  Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.

8. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice.  Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of equitable or proportional law only.

9. Free association, liberty - whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges - is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society.

10. Politics is the science of liberty.  The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression.  Society finds its highest perfectin in the union of order with anarchy."

Alan Chapman:

you're arguing from a mutualist or libertarian-socialist perspective

Partly, see my reply to Cowen70.

Alan Chapman:

I read some articles last night and now I understand where you're coming from.

I doubt it.  Perhaps you should cite your sources, so I can understand better where you're coming from?

Alan Chapman:

You've been context-dropping

I don't think so, but if that's the case why don't you supply the missing context?  I had a genuine case of this not so long ago with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses, it was quite a simple thing to look up their Bible quotations and see them in the correct context.

Alan Chapman:

in order to rationalize a social arrangement under which people are free to engage in parasitism while remaining insulated from accusations of theft and vandalism

This is not my intention.

Alan Chapman:

The notion of "occupany and use" in the absense of context is meaningless tautology.

No.  It's a statement of general principle.  You can evaluate it by applying it in any context you choose.

Alan Chapman:

Without context, any claim of a right to occupy and use something is based upon declaratory fiat, or "because I said so." The moral imperative to claim a right to act cannot be derived from the act, itself.

This is true.  But I am not making a claim, I'm trying to establish principles by which a claim may be made.  A claim is equally empty and based on delaratory fiat if it is not based also on principle.

Alan Chapman:

Furthermore, any potential act necessarily entails occupation and use, and are thus incidental to the act.

I don't understand this statement.

Alan Chapman:

the negation of any questions of moral implication through wordplay seems to be the entire point

Wrong.

Alan Chapman:

Private property is a claim of exclusive control over something to which others are expected to acquiesce.

True.  The question is: what is the basis of this claim?

Alan Chapman:

Since "occupation and use" necessarily subsumes acquiescence, occupation and use constitute a property rights claim.

You clearly do not understand mutualism, or you would not make this assertion.  See point 1 in my reply to cowen70.

Alan Chapman:

The moral implications of an act are defined by the nature of the act and not the words coming out of one's mouth.

True, but irrelevant in this context.

Alan Chapman:

To instist that "occpancy and use" are not a property rights claim is to deny antecedents upon which such an assertion logically rests (stolen concept fallacy).

On the contrary, the concept of property depends upon such notions as occupancy, use and production (among others).  It seems that you take property as a fundamental concept on which all others are based.  But why should I accept this?

Alan Chapman:

Deciding the disposition of goods based on a person's own subjective value judgements (what you call "need") is nothing but argument from pragmatism.

Pragmatism is certainly a big part of it.  Without pragmatism, your ethics, concepts and systems are just castles in the air.  It is the practical outcomes of our thinking by which it will ultimately be judged. 

Need is as objectively demonstrable as anything else.

Alan Chapman:

Pragmatism does not confer a person with the moral imperative to claim a right to act.

Married to principle it does.

Alan Chapman:

delineation via reciprocal consensus

The task is to create a consensus.  This involves establishing principles through investigation, logical thought, discussion and testing. 

Alan Chapman:

Instead of trying to be cute, you should've looked up what a loaded question is.

I know what a loaded question is, it is a question that you can't answer without incriminating yourself.  Metaphorically speaking, it is like a gun held to your head.  This was an attempt to inject a little humour into the discussion.  I am sorry if it offended you.

I don't believe I have posed a loaded question.  What I have done is to conduct a thought experiment to test the principle of private property.  I am sure you know sufficient scientific method to realize that experiments require artificial and extreme conditions (such as creating a vacuum, or using a pure substance, not found in natural form).

The beauty of it is that the experiment is publicly available to be reproduced or criticised and that you are free to devise any other experiment you wish in order to make a counter point.

Alan Chapman:

I think that mutualism should be called unilateralism, because that's essentially what it is. The word "mutualism" implies agreement, but what it really means is that people are free to agree but not disagree.

There may be some truth in this.  Mind you, I'm beginning get the feeling that I'm not free to disagree with you in any meaningful way, either.

Alan Chapman:

I've got to hand it to the socialists. No group works harder at not working.

I have known many socialists who worked extremely hard, often at boring and backbreaking jobs.  Since you want to label me a socialist, let me say that I work damned hard too and earn good money (I don't really have a landlord, though I've had several - and very unpleasant some of them were).

Like several other of your comments, this is just a gratuitous insult and not a rational argument at all.  (Or is it supposed to be a joke?)

memeverse:

Definitions of control (wiktionary, Merriam-Webster) include even just a mere influence over something

If owning property means just have a mere influence over it, I couldn't have too much objection to it.  But I don't think that this is what you do mean.

memeverse:

So when I speak of control I speak of acting. Control may be just another word for a series of actions that cause intentionally or not a series of effects.

I don't understand this.

memeverse:

If prior cause doesn't underpin a property claim then the claim is invalid.

I would prefer you said 'work' rather than prior cause, but if this is what you mean, I accept it as a valid basis for a claim to possession, but not the only one.

memeverse:

This then allows many people to acquire property solely by trading what they already have.

I go along with you up to this point, but if what they have is not a product of their own work, then whatever they buy is unvalidatd by such a claim.

memeverse:

That Native Americans didn't recognize property cannot change the fact that they owned their land, at least the land they lived on, maintained and used.

But this is seeing it from a European perspective.  It doesn't change the fact that the Europeans violated norms governing the use of land observed by the Native Americans and that these norms did not include a concept of property.

memeverse:

According to your own philosophy, Europeans were right to occupy the unused land. They just weren't right to keep it as their property, not because they essentially stole it from the natives, but because according to you nobody has the right to property.

It amounts to the same thing.  This is the point of Proudhon's famous phrase "property is theft".

memeverse:

Thus the example of Native Americans should serves as a good albeit sad warning of what happens when you deny yourself property rights.

I disagree.  All it shows is what can happen when you get into arguments with people who have guns.  This is even sadder, of course.

memeverse:

Their big mistake was failing to defend such property due to their failure to recognize their property as such.

They did try to defend their rights, but were defeated by trickery and violence, including biological warfare http://www.amazon.com/Bury-My-Heart-Wounded-Knee/dp/0805066691.

memeverse:

I think I understand enough to realize logical inconsistencies and contradictions with empirical reality when I see them. You call it an imposition of an idea and I call it objective reality. Do you believe such a thing doesn't exist? Because if it does then ultimately some ideas are going to be closer to reality than others and the closer they resemble reality the harder it is to fight their consequences. Take, for instance the law of gravity. When we conceptualize gravity in our minds we are talking about an idea. Suppose there are some people who do not believe in the idea of gravity and I'm trying to convince them that it exists so that they don't jump off of cliffs and skyscrapers thinking they'll just fly away. Is the fact they're gonna die an imposition of my idea or simply an effect of reality being at play due to the fact that, regardless of what your ideas are, gravity exists?

Of course, I recognise the effects of gravity, just as you do and so did the Native Americans.  The idea of property is different.  Surely the fact that people could live for millenia without such an idea must show that.  I can't imagine a society living without a notion of gravity (Perhaps, if they lived in a place that was totally flat?)

memeverse:

Or it may just as well be that you don't realize the link yet and misunderstand property. The latter is especially obvious from your insistance to equate property with a mere claim rather than a consequence of actions and think of the state as a necessary agent of property, none of which is true. It's obvious that when you talk about property you don't speak about the same thing I understand it to be, and thus you oppose it.

Maybe your right, or at least part right.  I certainly think that a concept of property based on the idea of work is an attractive one. 

One problem is that others in this forum don't appear to share your definition and I can't accept any formulation that doesn't squarely address the problem of violence. 

Another problem is the priority given to property.  As I've argued, the right to life must be prior to the right to property and I can't see any reason for having it the other way around. 

Saying that I own myself seems to me to a pointless circumlocation which just obscures the issues at stake.  I am myself and that seems to be enough, certainly more powerful than merely owning myself.  There seems to be a deep philosophical problem here, such that we are continually talking past each other.  At the moment, I can't see a way forward.  Perhaps you would like to recommend some reading?

memeverse:

You said posession, not property

Property is a form of possession, though not to my way of thinking a legitimate one.

memeverse:

"to own" means "to control" and that "to control" means "to take action that causes"

This is a nice succinct statement.  It serves at least to highlight where we disagree (just about at every point, unfortunately). [1] 'to own' does not necessarily mean 'to control', often ownership exists without control, as with a pension fund. [2] 'to control' is certainly 'to take action that causes', but not necessarily 'to take action that causes the thing that is controlled', i.e. controlling the ball is not necessarily dependent on creating the ball, nor even on owning the ball.

memeverse:

I say that because state is only one form of coercive organization. I don't oppose the state for its own sake alone. My opposition of the state is just a consequence of my more fundamental opposition to all coercion.

memeverse:

I say that because state is only one form of coercive organization. I don't oppose the state for its own sake alone. My opposition of the state is just a consequence of my more fundamental opposition to all coercion.

Bravo to that!

memeverse:

I find the statement that "private property corrupts the markets" to be almost oxymoronic since the market is entirely based on the notion of private property and has in US brought wonders of wealth

Certainly capitalist markets are based on the notion of private property and certainly they have brought wonders of wealth in many countries.  However:

1.  This has always been accompanies by state regulation and violence (both by the state and others);

2.  It has also brought depths of poverty and misery, often directly related to the accumulation of capital;

3.  Just to throw a new, but equally imortant consideration into the mix, it has resulted in environmental degredation that is now close to getting completely out of hand.

To my mind, the creation of free markets that are not accompanied by violence, poverty and pollution is the challenge that now faces the human race.  That is a complex problem, but it is the one we need to solve.

memeverse:

I'm in fact often overly concerned about whether I'm seriously missing something, as expressed in this thread

I know the feeling.

memeverse:

you conflate the free market with corporatism

No.  Perhaps I conflate the capitalist market with corporatism, but I recognise that markets can exist within many contexts.  I don't believe that capitalist markets are free markets, but I don't think that this can explained just through the actions of the state.  Microsoft maintains a near monopoly in at least two software markets in which I am forced to be a consumer by virtue of my work.  They attained this position through an early alliance with another monopoly practitioner, IBM.  Everyone seems to have forgotten this, and how ruthless IBM can be.  Anyway, they both maintain their position through poprietory design and 'lock in', which seems to me to direct the finger of suspicion towards property, rather than the state per se. 

It has taken me the best part of ten years to escape the Microsoft monopoly and believe me, I did not feel like a free individual during the process.

BTW, perhaps I should mention, given the implied accusations of dishonesty that I have faced in this forum, that I do not advocate stealing software from Microsoft.  The use of pirated MS software is actually one of the biggest threats to Free Software and is actually a major help to Microsoft in maintaining its monopoly.

memeverse:

I'm curious about how exactly would Free Market Socialism work? To me it's, as mentioned, nearly oxymoronic because the term "market" implies voluntary trade of things which are owned, thus depending on property, yet socialism denies property rights. How do you conduct trade if there is no property?

Trade can still be conducted through exchange of possessions.  No problem there.  The problem with property arises with the notion that an individual should be able to do anything that they want to do with their own property.  Socialism does not necessarily deny markets (actually most forms of socialism don't deny property either, but that's another story).  Most socialists in the UK (i.e. the current government) would argue that the market should be regulated by the state.  I would argue that it should be regulated by the community and by culture (i.e. by agreed shared values that limit the things that people can do with their possessions).  This would include putting an end to the elaborate fraud that is our current banking system, ending most forms of inheritance, the revision of the rules governing so-called intellectual property, and the continued support and extension of our excellent public health system.

memeverse:

1% makes a difference between a person passionate about extreme sports, for instance and a person passionate about writing computer code. They'd likely have completely different values and preferences, as well as skills and abilities. Few people are actually equal. So how do you settle a dispute on the basis of equality? What role does equality play there?

Well there has to be a conflict of interest for the principle of equality to come into play and right now it's beyond me to think one up.  These guys would probably just have nothing to do with each other.  Fundamentally, each has an equal right to follow their own interest and the values of each need to be taken into consideration.  The point about equal respect for values is important for what follows.

memeverse:

when somebody starts talking about "duty" all kinds of alarms go off in my head, especially when it comes from an anarchist. Duty as I see it translates to a positive obligation and I don't see no way of enforcing positive obligations other than by coercive authoritarian means

I guess I would say that the extreme sports guy would be entitled to help when he mashed himself up, even though the programmer might argue that it was his own stupid fault.  You can't just leave him to bleed.  That's not a matter of of free choice, there are just some things that you don't do. I don't think that there is a big issue of enforcement here.  Far less of an issue than would be involved in defending your second home against someone whose house had just fallen down for instance.

memeverse:

who orders the society according to this "duty"?

We all do.  This raises a basic question for all libertarians and not just my position: can we have an anarchist society, if some people don't believe in anarchism?

memeverse:

pursuing profit seems entirely dependent on providing "social returns"

No. Social returns refers to returns other than profit, such as: the welfare of the producers; environmental protection; or community development.  These are often at odds with turning a profit.  Think of oil companies in Nigeria, or your local crack dealer.

memeverse:

Anarcho-capitalist Free Market doesn't in any way disrupt formation of communities.

See above.

One of the problems is that capitalist economists and business men stress the competive and self-interested aspects of markets above all others: the 'greed is good' ideology.  Although markets don't actually operate in the way economists describe them, these descriptions act as an excuse for unethical behaviour.  In a variation on Gresham's Law, unethical trading drives out ethical trading.  B

memeverse:

Who are "they"? Be more precise. Are they all managers of the same fund at the same time, like shareholders or stakeholders? If so, have they all voluntarily agreed to participate in this fund?

memeverse:

Who are "they"? Be more precise. Are they all managers of the same fund at the same time, like shareholders or stakeholders? If so, have they all voluntarily agreed to participate in this fund?

Yes, they manage the fund collectively and are voluntary members of it.

memeverse:

what happens to those who default and still don't listen to the neighbors, wouldn't force then be used?

It hasn't happened.

memeverse:

what happens with the product's of the work being financed

It's sold.

memeverse:

What exactly gives this chief the right to distribute wealth like that?

The community, by allowing it to happen that way.  I don't say it's a perfect system.  Just better than the one we have.

memeverse:

It to me looks like one of the examples of coercive organizing I mentioned above, provided that he's willing to take the land against the will of the one he's taking it from.

I expect it only really becomes an issue when someone dies, or if there is a dispute.  In the latter case, there is almost bound to be coercion perceived by one side of the argument or the other, but the chief's authority allows it to be settled without violence.

Jalfro:

Alan Chapman:

memeverse, you have much more patience than I do.

He certainly does

I don't anymore, at least for now...