Anarchist Stuff
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
Wow, you must think I'm stupid. No, I don't think Bakunin was talking about state welfarism. I don't think it's particularly useful to call state welfarism "socialism." I think he generally means collective ownership of the means of production, and in the first half, "liberty without socialism," he's advocating for anarchist, libertarian socialism. The second half, "socialism without liberty," implies state socialism and describes it negatively. So in no way do I think that quote was in support of state-anything.
Anyway, it seems like you think I was attempting to use those particular quotes to support my beliefs; I wasn't. The sole purpose of that post was to show that anarcho-capitalism or propertarian voluntaryism, which this thread has been almost exclusively biased towards, isn't representative of anarchism as a whole. If you wanted this thread to be just about ancap, you should've titled it more appropriately.
Neither do I, but that's what people tend to think.
Marx is dead. Bakunin is dead. Communism has failed. As an economic theory, it has been refuted.
I don't mind at all that you post this stuff to this thread, because it all creates opportunities to learn and share. But there is no modern left anarchist movement. It would barely exist as an idea if you remove angry young people under the age of 25 going through an awkward phase.
Voluntarism and Ancap are the current state of anarchism. They are where all of the literature, organization, ideas and projects happen.
Again, it doesn't bother me that you post this stuff, but it's not reflective of modern anarchism like slavery isn't reflective of modern agricultural production methods.
Ideas change, evolve, die, gain momentum etc. Left anarchism is demonstrably irrational and illogical because it is based on a key economic flaw. And I have stated, that these guys tend to get class theory right, and certainly they get the evil of the fascist state right too.
The whole notion that there exists propertarian theory and non-propertarian theory is also demonstrably false. Hans Hoppe has shown this with his argumentation ethics.
Put simpler, and something I want to address to you anyway, do you own anything? If not, how do you acquire clothes, food, etc? If yes, then aren't you a propertarian?
Property rights are our way of constructing a social order around scarce reality (scarcity in material goods and time). Property rights emerge to lower costs by reducing violence and conflict. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. If we both understand this and act on it, we should have less conflicts.
The notion of property trickling through political and immoral means to a bourgeois class, is something libertarians, and ancaps, voluntarists etc all oppose. That's a violation of property rights.
We're actually not that far apart, you just ignore the moral contradictions in your philosophy, and I try like hell not to.
I have things I possess and call my own, sure. But that's not inconsistent with a position against private property, where there is a distinction made between private property (land, the means of production) and personal property (food, clothes, your car, house, etc). You put up this false binary of being for or against property, without recognizing that there are different kinds of property, and that is the issue. I know you're aware of the difference, so it seems to me you're intentionally regurgitating this strawman.
My personal view that I tend towards is that since land and the means of production are both scarce and necessary for sustaining life, and originally derived from the commons, it is therefore unjust to claim exclusive use disproportionately to one's own needs, without at the very least remunerating back to the commons (the people) some payment for their use, or some portion of the wealth derived from their use. Call me a commie if you like, but to me it sounds a lot more like Geolibertarianism.
This to me is a false and arbitrary binary.
Your first mistake is assuming I do stuff with malicious intent. I can assure you, I didn't create this thread, or reply to anyone in it with the intent of trolling the discussion. You're probably better off not trying to psychoanalyzing me and focus instead on discussing ideas.
The idea that anyone can take something out from the commons assumes that everyone had some share of ownership prior to anyone in particular owning that item. Which leads to the question of why were you able to take X from the commons when I wanted? Is it first come first serve? Can the "commons" not allow you to take from it? Who acts on behalf of the commons?
In economics, commons are terrible because they lack ownership and so lack a caretaker. If no one owns a forest, no one has an incentive to care for it. In fact, in game theory, people rape commons because they can't own it, and so the incentive is to squeeze as much out of it, as quickly as possible.
Good examples of this were the USSR and East Germany. Both had massive environmental issues, because when the state owns everything, no one has an incentive to preserve it. The state is not a forward thinking or long run oriented institution by nature of the political cycle.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I"]Tragedy of The Commons - YouTube[/ame]
I recommend you look into Lockean Homesteading theory. It's much more accurate than any notion of the commons (how can undiscovered territory be common, when no one knows about it?), and it's a very good framework for determining the origin of property rights in any particular element of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
Yeah yeah, same old tragedy of the commons argument. I know you're not doing this for my sake, but for the audience, but it's still tiresome. Even the guy that coined the term "tragedy of the commons" admitted it should've been the "tragedy of the unmanaged commons."
Anyway, where did I say land ought to be owned in common? what I suggested is that those who privatize land ought to give something back for the opportunity cost they incur on everyone else.
Look, ownership is a social construct. It's meaningless outside of a social context. How we treat ownership, the rules of ownership - those are negotiable within a society, and one way or another some prevailing agreement is reached.
Anyway, where did I say land ought to be owned in common? what I suggested is that those who privatize land ought to give something back for the opportunity cost they incur on everyone else.
Look, ownership is a social construct. It's meaningless outside of a social context. How we treat ownership, the rules of ownership - those are negotiable within a society, and one way or another some prevailing agreement is reached.
BTW, with regard to Lockean Homesteading - need I remind you of Locke's proviso? That people have a right to make property private only "where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." We're well past the point useful land is just sitting around unclaimed. It may have been a worthwhile theory at the time, but times have changed.
Right, but a managed commons is a proxy for private ownership.
Did you watch the video? It explains why management vs ownership is not sufficient for good stewardship.
You brought up the notion of a commons.
You can't impose an opportunity cost on others. Opportunity cost is a cost you bear for your own decisions (choices, tradeoffs).
What cost is born by others?
I agree completely. Crusoe economics.
They are negotiable, but it isn't a situation where every answer is correct. In fact, you have very explicitly stated that you don't believe that every societal property arrangement is good or legitimate.
So I am not really understanding what you're saying here.
Look, we come up with ideas of mine and thine to avoid conflicts and to lower social costs. If you remove the concept of ownership, you remove any rational (in the praxeological sense) calculation for use. You end up with irrational outcomes. There is a ton of economic theory devoted to this.
You seem to think I am some nutty right winger, but I'm not. If Communism made sense, I would be a Communist. If commons were part of a rational property theory, I would probably embrace them.
But I don't because those ideas aren't good. I only care if an idea is good or not, I am not trying to satisfy any bias except my very strong bias for peace.
You show me a better way to peace than Voluntarism, and I will follow you wherever you lead.
But if all land is claimed, then how can we have a commons?
The only way left to acquire property is to trade for it or for people to abandon it.
Anything else would be theft, would it not?
If all land is owned, and land is required to support human life, than those who do not own land are necessarily at the mercy of those who do. That is unjust.
I suggest conditions for land ownership that are socially acceptable. That's all.
I suggest conditions for land ownership that are socially acceptable. That's all.
Can we analyze some of your beliefs? For one, why does mixing one's labor with something result in a right to exclude others from it?
Does this apply to all things? Your children are the result of your labor, do you own them?
What about animals? Someone posted that video of a dog being abused (didn't watch it), is that a-ok? Is it cool to sexually abuse animals? They're just pieces of property, right?
Where do you draw the line? Or do you?
Does this apply to all things? Your children are the result of your labor, do you own them?
What about animals? Someone posted that video of a dog being abused (didn't watch it), is that a-ok? Is it cool to sexually abuse animals? They're just pieces of property, right?
Where do you draw the line? Or do you?
Can we unpack this a bit?
How are they at the mercy of those who own land?
And how is it unjust?
Are you suggesting that no one should own any land? If so, how do we resolve conflicts when you and I want to occupy the same area?
I get that, but can you be more explicit. I am not claiming the current system is perfect, but I think it is the best we have come up with.
Land is scarce. Demand for all intents and purposes, is infinite. This is a conflict of objective reality. How can we better resolve the issue that everyone wants land, and as much as they can get, but there is a limited amount of land?
What is a better solution?
As long as you're respectful, I am happy to be analyzed.
It doesn't. If you have an unowned resource in nature, the first person to mix labor with it, becomes the "original appropriator". The first owner of that part of nature.
From there, that person can continue to own it, trade it or abandon it. No one has a better claim to it than the first person to utilize it.
Children are rational actors. I don't believe they are property.
Animals can be property because they are not rational actors, but that doesn't mean that abusive behavior is morally good or psychologically healthy.
The buffalo almost went extinct. The cow has never come close to extinction. Why? Perhaps because the cow has been owned for a long time, and buffaloes existed in the commons.
We've strayed pretty far from justifying land as not being property, haven't we?
If you're asking where I draw the line, I don't think aggression against man or beast is moral behavior but again, assigning rights to creatures that cannot universalize those rights (follow them back) is problematic. It's a fundamental inequity, and no matter how much we want to pretend it shouldn't be, it is still there.
Because it is literally needed for existance, the non-owner lacks any bargaining power and the terms are entirely the owner's to make.
No.
The current system? Property taxes are paid in most places. And obviously I think those are justified.
Well, ideally perhaps, no one should have more land than they can personally occupy and use. And maybe the rest can be managed communally.
That doesn't explain why you think appropriation is justified. Can you justify it?
All children? Are infants rational actors? What about people in permanent vegetative states? Do they meet the definition of a rational actor? If so, what separates a rational actor from bag of meat?
Why does the condition of being a rational actor preclude someone from being property?
Are you familiar with the Argument from Marginal Cases?
It's not my position that no land should be private property. I think property is justified as long as it is socially beneficial, but I also believe in conditions on ownership for the same reason.
No, the owner has to compete with other land owners. The land owner who is very abusive risks losing his tenants to better ones.
That's how markets work.
Why are they justified?
Why would you want it managed communally? I've already mentioned that management is not a proxy for ownership. Managers are short run actors. See the USSR and East Germany.
How else would you suggest people come to own property? It must be appropriated from its natural state.
I can dig up literature on this if you're genuinely interested.
I as a rule, treat all humans as rational actors except those who wish me harm. That group doesn't have ethics universalized to them because they are acting irrationally, and unethically.
Universality wrt ethics.
(I realize this needs more discussion, but its a very long topic)
I am now. It's not a good argument because the comatose, senile and infants pose no risk to me, or very little risk, whereas a tiger or bear poses a great risk to me.
Can you define socially beneficial?
Who has the right to impose conditions on someone else?
How many land owners would allow people with no money to live on their land?
If someone has little or nothing, they are denied even a place to exist in, except for the mercy of some owner or other. That to me is wrong.
I feel pretty strongly that man has a natural right to access nature, and that to deny that is to violate that right.
Because a claims of private property remove access by everyone else to that property. Taxation on the land that is distributed back to the people is compensation for that loss.
Shall I dig up some examples of private land managed badly? I'm sure there's no need.
I greatly appreciate that there are public parks I am free to access. Ideally, I'd like it even more if we had freedom to roam rights.
The burden is on you to show that a claim to property is just. Just taking it doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it okay to deny others access to it. You haven't shown why you think it is just.
I happen to think conditional property ownership is probably just on the grounds that it's generally better for people.
That's not a good argument, either. What risk do cows or pigs pose to you?
That which promotes the well-being of the largest number of people. Maximizes utility, say.
I think you have the question backwards. The question should be, who has the right to claim property? And I would answer, anyone has the right to claim anything, but no one has to accept that claim. If you want the claim recognized, you'll need to accept the conditions established by the society you live in.
I would.
Well, when you have nothing, you're in need of mercy. We used to call this charity, when someone with more helped someone with less.
I mean, fundamentally, you're arguing that reality is not fair. And I agree with you. Fairness is a very vague ideal. All we can try to do is be decent with each other.
As a generalization, this sounds good. But what do you do when two men try to access the same natural resource?
How is it a loss?
Also, this is sort of a non-sequitur. Property by definition must be private.
Also, property taxes are not distributed back to the people. They are used to provide municipal services to property owners, like garbage collection, road maintenance, and access to public schools.
The difference is, that the owners bear the cost, or the loss of bad management. Those incentives to manage well don't exist for "public property" or commons.
I am sure that welfare recipients appreciate the welfare their receive too. Of course you're going to appreciate things you can take advantage of at little or no cost.
The question is, who is bearing that cost for you?
If you're roaming on no one's land, that's not much of an issue. There is a common belief that such land should not be appropriated by anyone and so stay in a state of nature for everyone to enjoy.
But the freedom to roam on land that someone owns and certainly land someone occupies is a recipe for conflict.