RE: A Message From the Chief Anarchist For the Anarcho Capitalist Peasants.
The way I interpret that meme is saying that 'rent is theft', which is a common argument from communists. It's arguing that people who own and rent out property are enslaving the rest of the population, which I think is false.
If I happen to accumulate wealth legitimately, buy some property, and rent out that property to others, I'm not 'exploiting' or stealing from anyone - provided the interaction is voluntary.
I don't think it's actually referring to kings, queens, and rulers who have took land via conquest, but that's my interpretation. Obviously, acquiring land and wealth through conquest is illegitimate and completely immoral, but that's not what I think the meme is getting at.
Rent is not theft, provided the property has been acquired through honest and non-violent means.
Well said!
I suggest re-reading what I have written in the post because you appear to be doing exactly what I said most commenters do, which is to overlook the points I made.
I might be wrong, but I think the guy who uploaded the meme made it and in the conversation in the comments on fb it was clear he was thinking the same as me here.
"Additionally, even if there was some form of a total reset on wealth and we all started again with nothing - building things up by free trade - there would still be a situation where whoever manages to accumulate the most wealth and land can actually control so much that children are born on that land."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the assumption here is that the accumulation of wealth, or wealth inequality, is inherently wrong, even if said wealth was acquired legitimately. If I make a living buying and renting out property, and my children want to continue in that business, what's wrong with that?
The way I see it, poverty is the natural state of man. Some people acquiring vast amounts of wealth, while others have very little wealth, is not an indication of exploitation or wrongdoing on anyone's part. Provided no coercion, fraud, or theft is used, I couldn't give a damn whether some people are vastly wealthier than others. The world doesn't owe me wealth, or even shelter. It's up to me to acquire those things.
Provided no one is infringing on my free will to acquire those things - shelter, food etc., there is no problem, even if I'm much poorer than you. I couldn't care less.
I generally aim to not make assumptions, though I may do sometimes without noticing. I am pointing at the practicalities involved that result in there being a kind of race whereby the greediest and most cunning are likely to accrue the most, not those who have the most to offer in a balanced way. If my aim is to always ensure that all beings have their needs met - which is a noble aim - then I will not seek to amass huge wealth and ignore those who may not have enough to enjoy life (or even survive at all). On the flipside, those who are utterly heartless will tend to do the opposite and (partially due to a lack of self acceptance - which is spun to be a 'strong will to succeed') will often just strive to gain as much 'wealth' for themselves as possible (and thus power) without much concern for anything else. The main issue is not with wealth inequality, but with the very real reality that those who have the most can (and often do) make life extremely difficult for those with the least (and actually also for as many other people as possible).
My point is not specifically declaring that owning and trading property is wrong or an inherent problem - my point is more about how domination is taking place and overpowering of free will, with land ownership being one of the main vehicles of that domination.
Why do you think that? Is it because you know the intended, original state of humans on Earth? Or is it because you were born into a society and culture that pushes that narrative? I see the lack on Earth as being mostly engineered (manufactured lack).
If the world is naturally the birthright of all beings, then to cordon off some of it and prevent others from entering is an act of theft which is typically enforced using violence. Challenge to this situation is typically stifled through coercion or violence. The Kett's rebellion in England was the first attempt to fight back against the enclosures Act which was the first 'rule' that changed the land from being 'common land' used by all, to being owned by 'land owners'. The rebellion was a minor war in England's history that is rarely mentioned. The monarch at that time brought in battle hardened mercenaries and killed those involved en masse. My point is that the entire premise of putting up fences and having land ownership of this form appears to largely have begun under exactly the circumstances that you oppose.
You will only get them from the world, they are meant to be here waiting for you to claim them - not to struggle to work 9-5 just to have a chance at borrowing them from someone else!
"Whereby the greediest and most cunning are likely to accrue the most, not those who have the most to offer in a balanced way."
This, to me, is another assumption that those who are the most wealthy are 'greedy' and 'cunning' businessmen, with little to no sense of ethics or morality. Just because someone is wealthy, and chooses to spend that wealth how he sees fit, does not make him greedy or cunning. I find this assumption to be deeply ingrained in British culture, which is a heavily socialist-leaning society, hence the cultural adoration of services like the NHS.
"My point is more about how domination is taking place and overpowering of free will, with land ownership being one of the main vehicles of that domination."
Someone owning private property is not a violation of my free will. Everyone, including the Native Americans, valued their own private space, or private property. They might not have used those specific terms, but they absolutely believed in the concept of private property and privacy. If you decided to walk into a strangers camp and make a home for yourself without gaining permission, you would be promptly kicked out or killed.
"If the world is naturally the birthright of all beings, then to cordon off some of it and prevent others from entering is an act of theft which is typically enforced using violence."
The world is naturally the birthright of all beings, and people should be free to travel this beautiful planet. With that said, fencing off some land and making a home for yourself is not an act of theft and need not be enforced via violence. Humans and animals are naturally territorial beings. I like my privacy. I like having a private place I can call home, where yes, I do have the right to fence it off if I wish, and stop people trespassing. Fencing off some land, and making a home for yourself, is not in any way theft, provided I am not preventing others from exercising their free will and setting up their own home.
If everywhere was 'common land', I assume you wouldn't have a problem with someone entering your home and deciding to make it their own? Is your house 'common land', or is it inaccessible to strangers? Do people have a right to just enter your home, with the justification that it should be 'common land', or do you deserve your own privacy and territory?
"Why do you think that? Is it because you know the intended, original state of humans on Earth? Or is it because you were born into a society and culture that pushes that narrative? I see the lack on Earth as being mostly engineered (manufactured lack).!
It has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with nature. We were born into this world with nothing. No shelter, wealth, and even limited access to food. That was, and still is, the natural state. The question isn't what causes poverty, but what causes prosperity and wealth. Through using our reason and will, we found ways to build shelter and acquire food more efficiently. The world, however, doesn't owe you any of those things. Cosmic Intelligence has ordained nature in such a way that man must work to eat, build, and create wealth of his own. None of those things are a given, for any creature on earth.
"Not to struggle to work 9-5 just to have a chance at borrowing them from someone else!"
For thousands of years, humans beings worked on the farm from sunrise to sunset, just to put food in their mouths. They worked until they couldn't work any more and died at a young age. The poorest people today live better than kings and queens of the past.
We have it easier now than we have at any point in history, in terms of wealth and prosperity.
If you do not like borrowing property from others, then build your own property. There's more than enough land. The only thing stopping you, of course, is the state - not private property owners. If you do not like your 9-5 situation, get another job. The only thing stopping people is their limiting beliefs. Choosing to work 9-5 is just that, a choice. An unconscious one, but still a choice nonetheless.
I think "rent is theft" is a rhetorical flourish. Rent is rent. Rent-seeking behavior is bad, in general.
Rent seeking for capital accumulation is considered a drag on the economy. That's definitely what happens during a surge of gentrification, and it's being opposed by tenants in numerous cities.
The more radical position was Proudhon's famous saying: "Property is Theft!"