Thoughts on elimination of the state and privatization of property

[JohnCJackson]

I consider myself an anarchist of the libertarian left. I don't really feel like getting into too much. Just putting it out there that I don't consider libertarianism a rightist/conservative ideology. If you are interested in thoughts on the issues and solutions of what to do without the state, how to have private property without "serfdom", justice, and so on- read some on left-libertarianism, agorism, anarchists who believe in free markets,etc.

I honestly can't think of a single thing the state can do or does that could not be done better without state interference. The idea that the state somehow protects people or secures their freedoms is absurd.

 

[guerilla]

I consider myself an anarchist of the libertarian left. I don't really feel like getting into too much. Just putting it out there that I don't consider libertarianism a rightist/conservative ideology.

I don't think right and left have any relevance to libertarianism at all. The folks who conflate PJ Proudhon with libertarianism are just as bad as those who conflate Ayn Rand with libertarianism.

Market anarchism is apolitical. Right and left are connected to false conceptions of collective value preferences. An individualist doesn't have much use for collective distinctions.

I honestly can't think of a single thing the state can do or does that could not be done better without state interference. The idea that the state somehow protects people or secures their freedoms is absurd.

Bravo.

 

[Refrozen]

As usual, I have no response, because you were right about everything you said. I'm still reading that rule of law article, not sure how it's relevant yet.

 

[LazyHippy]

Just to stir things up a bit, have any of you ever considered the elimination of property?

To clarify, I mean no entity owns any item. I'm not talking about collective ownership here, but no ownership at all.

Given the way our society has developed it's a concept that's easy to dismiss, but similar notions exist in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and as far as theoretical utopias go it seems to be a compelling one.

 

[papajohn56]

Just to stir things up a bit, have any of you ever considered the elimination of property?

To clarify, I mean no entity owns any item. I'm not talking about collective ownership here, but no ownership at all.

Given the way our society has developed it's a concept that's easy to dismiss, but similar notions exist in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and as far as theoretical utopias go it seems to be a compelling one.

I don't think this is even possible, because the concept of territory and basic property is ingrained in animal instincts.

 

[rgordon83]

Just to stir things up a bit, have any of you ever considered the elimination of property?

To clarify, I mean no entity owns any item. I'm not talking about collective ownership here, but no ownership at all.

Given the way our society has developed it's a concept that's easy to dismiss, but similar notions exist in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and as far as theoretical utopias go it seems to be a compelling one.

What would anyone's incentive be to create anything if they don't own what they create?

 

[guerilla]

Just to stir things up a bit, have any of you ever considered the elimination of property?

To clarify, I mean no entity owns any item. I'm not talking about collective ownership here, but no ownership at all.

Yes.

Given the way our society has developed it's a concept that's easy to dismiss, but similar notions exist in Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and as far as theoretical utopias go it seems to be a compelling one.

It is a Utopian idea for sure. The issues that arise from non-ownership or group ownership are tragedy of the commons and the impossibility of rational economic calculation.

I think most people understand tragedy of the commons, where no one owns something, so they all race to abuse the resource faster than the other guy because no one has a stake in its long term value. A good example is whaling.

Economic calculation is a little trickier.

What would anyone's incentive be to create anything if they don't own what they create?

That's the sophisticated economic calculation argument, boiled down to its essential truth. Without ownership, which is necessary for exchange, it is impossible to value resources relative to one another.
​

If men are angels you can try something like this, where there will be no disputes over who gets to sit where, who gets to eat what.

But as long as resources as scarce (including labor, which is the product of scarce time) then having some system of dispute resolution between conflicts in the physical world is necessary if we are going to strive for peaceful order.

 

[guerilla]

As usual, I have no response, because you were right about everything you said.

I was a minarchist for quite a while. I know many of the arguments.

I'm still reading that rule of law article, not sure how it's relevant yet.

The big holdout for some minarchists (it was for me) is that market law and competition between security providers seems like something which has to be done by government, because it is too important to leave up to the market.

I think the article is very good at refuting that argument.

This is also another great article along similar lines.

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long

 

[Pseudo Nym]

It would if my employees learned how to engineer/grow new crops of larger, juicier, better tasting berries. Then my investment paid off with my company growing a superior product and making more money for myself and my now higher-educated employees.

This is a fantasy. You wouldn't train your employees to do this - you'd hire someone who already knew how to do it.

The same could be said about Al Gore and the Global Warming lie.

Global Warming is a theory. Up for debate. There is data, there is interpretation of that data, some of it biased or deceptive. Global Warming may be a misnomer; climate change may be more accurate. It wouldn't be the first time the Earth has been through significant climate shift. The questions are, if it's happening, are humans having an influence? And, again, if it's happening, is there something we can do about it to mitigate any negative effects? Sad that it's become so politicized.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

What would anyone's incentive be to create anything if they don't own what they create?

Have you never found pleasure in creating something, just for the sake of it? Why do graffiti artists do what they do? They don't "own" their creation.

I would also offer that there is a difference between "ownership" and "possession." That, even though, "property," as such, may not exist, possession or usage constitutes a right to a thing that should be respected. Maybe that's unrealistic and requires people to be more respectful to eachother than can reasonably be expected, I don't know. It seems to me the Native Americans lived somewhat like this (prior to the arrival of Europeans), at least insofar as ownership of land was concerned.

 

[guerilla]

It seems to me the Native Americans lived somewhat like this (prior to the arrival of Europeans), at least insofar as ownership of land was concerned.

It's fantastic if you want to live in a primitive pre-industrial society.

 

[LazyHippy]

I think most people understand tragedy of the commons, where no one owns something, so they all race to abuse the resource faster than the other guy because no one has a stake in its long term value. A good example is whaling.

Economic calculation is a little trickier.

That's the sophisticated economic calculation argument, boiled down to its essential truth. Without ownership, which is necessary for exchange, it is impossible to value resources relative to one another.
​

If men are angels you can try something like this, where there will be no disputes over who gets to sit where, who gets to eat what.

But as long as resources as scarce (including labor, which is the product of scarce time) then having some system of dispute resolution between conflicts in the physical world is necessary if we are going to strive for peaceful order.

(Apologies for crappy quoting... I'm *trying* not to spend much time here!)

... Argh, this is making me think about value, quality, religion and (yet again) desire. I really don't have the time to organise the thoughts in my head, let alone come up with some coherent reply.

I'll try to come back to this (and make more sense)....

Maybe, while eliminating property and ownership isn't possible or (er..) desirable, eliminating the desire for property and ownership is.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

This is a fantasy. You wouldn't train your employees to do this - you'd hire someone who already knew how to do it.

It's amazing you know what I would do. How do you know this? Your statement is proof of some sort of disposition you have which makes you keep an underlying hatred for private industry. That's really the only logical reason you can take a scenario as this and snap off with a malformed opinion of your generalization of private industry.

Consider this scenario: Nobody engineers or grows these berries. Where would I look to hire someone who knows this? I would need someone with a berry growing background of whom I trust and have confidence in (my current employees). Your assertation private industry would discard their current employees for an upgrade in every case is a sore miscalculation on your part.

But... for argument's sake, let's just theorize that I DID in fact fire my current employee who was a bit less skilled than my new (more expensive) and more educated employee. Given the advances in berry growing that will follow as a result of my innovation, other berry growers are rapidly trying to innovate to keep up with the competition and now need an army of skilled berry growers (educated or not) in engineering bigger, juicier berries. The free market will step up their search (due to a lack of supply for such employees) and start offering incentives (paid education) to attract employees.

Such expansion is good for everyone, even the consumer (high tide rising all ships scenario).

Don't think it happens? Then you don't remember the dot com boom/bubble. Sure, I anticipate your rebuttal to be "a lot of people eventually lost many of those jobs" but they walked away with better skills and hopefully some money in their account since most of them were entry level 20k-30k per year mail carriers when it all started.

You really need to calm the "Business owners are evil" hard-on you have or it will eventually consume you.

 

[guerilla]

Maybe, while eliminating property and ownership isn't possible or (er..) desirable, eliminating the desire for property and ownership is.

I meant to reply back to this a couple days ago.

Communism is an idea grounded in a post property world. That everything is owned publicly and there is no private ownership. Of course we know that whoever manages the property in the public trust, is for all intents and purposes, the owner. They can sell it, allocate it, restrict it etc. They have all of the rights of property ownership, without any of the costs (which fall on the taxpayer or citizen).

Property is innate. As individuals, we each have a sense of self, and self control, that differentiates us from others, and control over their bodies, minds and lives. This is property's (as a concept) great value. It allows us to create order. So instead of me trying to use your body, and you trying to use mine, or one of us trying to control both of our bodies/lives, we both work from the natural order of self ownership and self control. We're not in conflict with nature by exercising ownership over ourselves. We are in conflict with nature and each other by trying to exercise ownership over one another without permission.

The premise of socialism (*not* used as a scare word) is that there is one plan to fit everyone, and if the one plan doesn't fit everyone, then we need to change everyone to fit the one plan. No competition between plans is tolerable. The more socialistic a system, the less diversity of opinion, choice, preference, language etc. is tolerated.

The "new communist man" loves to work, but seeks no profit. He cares for the his fellow man more than he cares for himself. He is a servant to all and a master to none.

The problem isn't property. Property is a conception of how to order reality between rational actors. The problem is when we cannot accept that people are individuals and they should be able to act individually.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Must've missed this reply earlier.

You've made some erroneous assumptions.

It's amazing you know what I would do. How do you know this? Your statement is proof of some sort of disposition you have which makes you keep an underlying hatred for private industry. That's really the only logical reason you can take a scenario as this and snap off with a malformed opinion of your generalization of private industry.

I don't hate private industry. What I'm saying is the competitive forces naturally tend to squeeze people up or down; either they move up the ranks, or they end up on the bottom with very little hope of that ever changing*. The people on the bottom could use a hand. That's all I'm saying.

*Obviously, circumstances and environment play a role here, and I don't mean to say that it's impossible to work one's way out of their situation. But it's often the case that people end up in a financial trap where, despite working very hard, they can't seem to get ahead, and/or are unable to keep their basic needs met (food/housing/transportation/health care).

Consider this scenario: Nobody engineers or grows these berries. Where would I look to hire someone who knows this? I would need someone with a berry growing background of whom I trust and have confidence in (my current employees). Your assertation private industry would discard their current employees for an upgrade in every case is a sore miscalculation on your part.

I didn't say anything about discarding or replacing employees. What I suggested was you would bring in an expert in the field. But that's kind of a moot point, since what I'm talking about are the pickers - the guys being paid by the pound - not the guys in charge of planning or implementing the planting and cultivation. I'm talking about the guys doing the grunt work. And what I'm saying is, those people aren't going to get any kind of paid training. It's pure fantasy to imagine berry workers, or hotel maids, or any of a number of other very-low pay jobs getting any kind of skill training beyond what it takes to do their job. There are always exceptions, but they are few and far between.

But... for argument's sake, let's just theorize that I DID in fact fire my current employee who was a bit less skilled than my new (more expensive) and more educated employee. Given the advances in berry growing that will follow as a result of my innovation, other berry growers are rapidly trying to innovate to keep up with the competition and now need an army of skilled berry growers (educated or not) in engineering bigger, juicier berries. The free market will step up their search (due to a lack of supply for such employees) and start offering incentives (paid education) to attract employees.

It sounds nice in theory, but this is by and large not how it works in the real world. Not at the bottom end, anyway, which is what I'm talking about. To suggest it does is to ignore reality.

Such expansion is good for everyone, even the consumer (high tide rising all ships scenario).

Don't think it happens? Then you don't remember the dot com boom/bubble. Sure, I anticipate your rebuttal to be "a lot of people eventually lost many of those jobs" but they walked away with better skills and hopefully some money in their account since most of them were entry level 20k-30k per year mail carriers when it all started.

Not sure this is relevant. Berry pickers didn't up and become web designers.

You really need to calm the "Business owners are evil" hard-on you have or it will eventually consume you.

Again, this does not in any way represent my opinion. I don't know who you're fighting here, but it's not me.

It seems to me your arguments are largely based in economic theories which tend to take only a partial view and ignore some pretty stark realities.


A lot of libertarians are young, white, male. Wonder why that is? As a group, they tend to have the fewest obstacles and the most opportunities. Naturally, they resent having their freedom impinged upon, but what they don't realize is how much inherent privilege they have.

Ever lived hard? I mean, have you ever had to decide between paying rent, eating, and a repair bill to fix your car which suddenly broke down - your only means of transportation to your job? Ever lost a tooth because you couldn't afford to see a dentist? These are day-to-day realities for people in the America, let alone the rest of the world. Just because you don't see it (or choose not to), doesn't mean it's not happening. Preaching the gospel of the free market doesn't help these people; indeed, it shows an arrogance and callous disregard for their condition.

It might be useful for you to read some of the literature on privilege. It seems like it's a bit of an alien concept to most of those of a conservative or libertarian bent. You will be angrily dismissive about it at first (trust me), but if you give it some time and an open mind, it may offer you some new perspective on things.

 

[guerilla]

What I'm saying is the competitive forces naturally tend to squeeze people up or down; either they move up the ranks, or they end up on the bottom with very little hope of that ever changing*. The people on the bottom could use a hand. That's all I'm saying.

*Obviously, circumstances and environment play a role here, and I don't mean to say that it's impossible to work one's way out of their situation. But it's often the case that people end up in a financial trap where, despite working very hard, they can't seem to get ahead, and/or are unable to keep their basic needs met (food/housing/transportation/health care).

If you want to help them, do it with your money. Other people will help them with their money. You have no right to encourage the use of violence to force people to help others. That is not moral, that is not liberal and that is not compassionate.

Charity is a voluntary, not coerced action.

Also, your assertion, even with cute asterisk, is still unfounded. The middle class has only emerged where wages rose, and wages only rise with productivity and capital investment, and productivity and capital investment only rise when there is competition. That is not a controversial statement, that is basic econ, across all sorts of schools I both agree and disagree with.

John Stossel did a great episode on the increase in living standards for his new Fox Business network show. You should watch it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QptkyG-H9Vg"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 1[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0dQ2p25Qs"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 2[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFsQh_z2hA"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 3[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHyc_HR1rD4"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 4[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5d-xiCNuI"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 5[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwRKVkSb4BI"]YouTube- Stossel - Life Is Getting Better Part 6[/ame]

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Of course we know that whoever manages the property in the public trust, is for all intents and purposes, the owner. They can sell it, allocate it, restrict it etc. They have all of the rights of property ownership, without any of the costs (which fall on the taxpayer or citizen).

You're presuming an authoritarian state, rather than a democracy.

Property is innate. As individuals, we each have a sense of self, and self control, that differentiates us from others, and control over their bodies, minds and lives. This is property's (as a concept) great value. It allows us to create order. So instead of me trying to use your body, and you trying to use mine, or one of us trying to control both of our bodies/lives, we both work from the natural order of self ownership and self control. We're not in conflict with nature by exercising ownership over ourselves. We are in conflict with nature and each other by trying to exercise ownership over one another without permission.

Man, talk about a straw man. Who's going to argue against an individual's right to their own body? Why not address the real issue - the idea of ownership of external things.

The premise of socialism (*not* used as a scare word) is that there is one plan to fit everyone, and if the one plan doesn't fit everyone, then we need to change everyone to fit the one plan. No competition between plans is tolerable. The more socialistic a system, the less diversity of opinion, choice, preference, language etc. is tolerated.

This is not an accurate representation of modern social democracy or liberalism. Most countries/populations that are more socially liberal are also more respectful of diversity.

The "new communist man" loves to work, but seeks no profit. He cares for the his fellow man more than he cares for himself. He is a servant to all and a master to none.

I fail to see how this a bad thing, honestly. Unrealistic maybe, but not bad. Imagine a world without greed? I'll take it. I'd love to live in a world where people do what they enjoy and what helps others, rather than screwing each other over for a buck (I'm probably on the wrong forum for that, though).

The problem isn't property. Property is a conception of how to order reality between rational actors. The problem is when we cannot accept that people are individuals and they should be able to act individually.

"Rational actors." Since when do people behave rationally? How can you buy into an economic theory when the whole premise it's based on is humans acting rationally?

 

[Pseudo Nym]

If you want to help them, do it with your money. Other people will help them with their money. You have no right to encourage the use of violence to force people to help others. That is not moral, that is not liberal and that is not compassionate.

Charity is a voluntary, not coerced action.

No one is forcing you. You're agreeing to it by continuing to live as a part of society. As a society, we collectively agree on the rules we want to live by. You want the benefits, you have to do your part. Think of it as a cost of doing business. You can go live in the woods if you want.

Also, your assertion, even with cute asterisk, is still unfounded. The middle class has only emerged where wages rose, and wages only rise with productivity and capital investment, and productivity and capital investment only rise when there is competition. That is not a controversial statement, that is basic econ, across all sorts of schools I both agree and disagree with.

John Stossel did a great episode on the increase in living standards for his new Fox Business network show. You should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwRKVkSb4BI

So the middle class hasn't been shrinking these last few decades? Is that what you're claiming?

 

[guerilla]

You're presuming an authoritarian state, rather than a democracy.

No, I am not. Read what I wrote again.

Man, talk about a straw man. Who's going to argue against an individual's right to their own body? Why not address the real issue - the idea of ownership of external things.

The people who restrict sex, marriage, drugs, alcohol etc from other people. That is arguing against an individual's right to their own body.

Also, you own your body, therefore, you also own the fruits of your labor. That means that taxes are illegitimate.

So what external things are you talking about? Cars and iPods? Things produced with, or exchanged for, the fruits of our labor?

This is not an accurate representation of modern social democracy or liberalism. Most countries/populations that are more socially liberal are also more respectful of diversity.

Modern social democracy is democratic socialism. Liberalism hasn't existed since the 19th century with the exception of Hong Kong and maybe a few other economic free zones.

I fail to see how this a bad thing, honestly. Unrealistic maybe, but not bad. Imagine a world without greed? I'll take it. I'd love to live in a world where people do what they enjoy and what helps others, rather than screwing each other over for a buck (I'm probably on the wrong forum for that, though).

You don't understand what I wrote. Do you understand what rational egoism is? If not, find out.

"Rational actors." Since when do people behave rationally? How can you buy into an economic theory when the whole premise it's based on is humans acting rationally?

Again, you do not understand what I mean by rationality. I am not claiming anyone is objectively rational, as in "a perfect decision maker". I recognize that everyone makes subjective value judgments. No two people value the same thing, the same way at the same time.

But when people act, they always act towards what they think (within the limits of their knowledge and resources) is in their best interest. Thus, if you choose to steal rather than work, then it means you rationalized the action of stealing. You didn't think work was better, and then decided to steal anyways. If you did, you would be an irrational actor. You would be acting against your own interests, as best understood by you.

That is why socialism doesn't work. If you are supposed to serve your fellow man, even if it is at your detriment, and he is supposed to serve you, even if it is at his detriment, you have an irrational system where people are working towards ends that the other party cannot define, let alone desire.

I care about my family, because it makes me feel good. I help other people, because it makes me feel good. I wouldn't help other people if it made them feel good, but me feel bad. That would be irrational. I would be acting against my own interest.

It is a very narrow (and dangerous) view of the world, where you think YOU ALONE know how best to be compassionate (socialist planner hubris) but mankind as a species is vile and evil and lecherous, and if they are not made to serve each other at the barrel of a gun, society will unravel.

Yes, there are selfish, mean, cruel, violent people. I suspect for nearly all of us, they comprise a very small percentage of the people we interact with daily. If you remove politicians and bureaucrats, I bet it is less than 1%. Why? Because good people generally don't hang out with assholes. It would be irrational if they did.

 

[guerilla]

No one is forcing you. You're agreeing to it by continuing to live as a part of society. As a society, we collectively agree on the rules we want to live by.

Sure people are forced. There is no social contract for existence. That is nonsense. Also, no one collectively agrees to the rules. That is another fallacy. An implicit contract, is a slave contract.

For any contract to be valid, legally but more important, ethically, it has to be EXPLICIT. That is, I can't cut your lawn, and then bill you $20, if you didn't agree first that I would cut your lawn for a fee.

What government does, is say, "You have to go to school, then when you get out, you have to pay for the privilege of doing so. You have to be in the pension scheme, so you have to pay into it. You must have police and fire dept. and embassies and foreign aid, and welfare, and nuclear bombs, and space programs and even more politicians and bureaucrats and agencies each year. So you have to pay for it."

You want the benefits, you have to do your part. Think of it as a cost of doing business. You can go live in the woods if you want.

You cannot drop out. You are not allowed to own property. You are not even allowed self-ownership.

So the middle class hasn't been shrinking these last few decades? Is that what you're claiming?

It has, but that isn't due to markets or capitalism. It is due to socialism, most specifically the debasement of paper currency, which is 50% of all transactions (we trade goods and services for money). By eroding the value of the currency, that disincentivizes saving (the capital to increase productivity and gain social mobility) and incentivizes debt, which is a drag on people trying to get ahead (compounding interest payments).

Watch the videos and question some of the ideas you hold.