Yes, I do. Traditionally, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. @thepholosopher characterized this viewpoint as anarcho-communist in the video, but I would disagree and just say it's the traditional anarchist viewpoint. I'm of the opinion that capitalism requires state guaranteed privilege to function as it has in practice existed.
Private property is usually a point of contention between myself and proponents of a voluntaryist philosophy. I favor occupancy and use rather than government granted land titles. How would private property be established and enforced? Here's a comical take on the issue. In the comic, the capitalists are enclosing the commons (natural resources) and charging a rent for access.
That comic was a good illustration of what you're saying, thanks!
When I say private property I am referring to occupancy and use. I agree that the form of private property in the comic is illegitimate and would require a government to enforce.
Cool. I was probably splitting hairs a bit here. I mainly like to have the distinction to distance myself from the vulgar libertarianism that is often associated with self proclaimed anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists.
He's talking about situations like an individual claiming to own something like all the coconut trees on an island. The local residents would not allow that to happen, so the only way to enforce it would be through violence (i.e. government).
These absurd examples never work. How is one person going to even do what is suggested? It isn't possible. You wouldn't need violence to stop them either. How is one person going to guard all the trees? When they attack you, defend yourself.
There is a nuance problem in the cartoon. To 'own' all the ocean, or 'all the coconuts/trees' requires lending individual sovereignty to a social construct that would reinforce ownership of 'all the ocean' or 'all the coconuts/trees'. The only attempted type of social construct to ever attempt to establish reinforcement of entirety schemes of scale is either a manifestation of a type of socialism or communism.
Notice also in the cartoon, the only solution to such a entirety scheme is a violent revolution, and a entirety regime of rule by force.
Ya, that is the dictionary definition, but history gives more context. The first self-proclaimed anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stated, "Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak." He was critical of both capitalism and communism. If you want to get technical with labels, you could call this mutualism.
Well, I disagree with him. Oligarchs love the idea of no private property too. It makes it easy to control people. I don't often quote people from the past because of all the inconsistencies that can be found from their writing. I grew up poor, and I have honestly accumulated plenty of private property. Nothing I have done has exploited anyone. I haven't robbed anyone either.
The cold hard truth is that a lot of people don't have property and only debts because they cannot control their spending and spend way more than they make. You don't have to make a lot to accumulate wealth either. All you have to do is spend less than you make. Someone living in a van for example can save a lot of fiat very quickly. What do they do with it then if buying property is immoral?
One of the main reasons I live in a van is because to me it's the closest comfortable approximation to occupancy and use based property rights that can be achieved in today's world. I don't pay rent or property taxes, but obviously have the vehicle costs to access the land. I'd rather save the money and work less so I can do things I enjoy.
Between a place I owned and was force to rent for a loss because I couldn't sell it and the rent for the other place I was living in, I was paying $3,150 a month at one point in my life. That was just the mortgage and rent! It's definitely a huge anchor around a person's neck. :(
Here in Virginia we pay "property tax" on vehicles. According to your beliefs then, it is wrong for me to own a property and rent it out to someone who voluntarily wants to rent it? I'm not there, but I own the property.
Ya, the fees vary by state but are generally low. It's not perfect. Absentee landlord rent and ownership of vacant and unimproved land that you withhold from someone using would be considered illegitimate. That's not to say you couldn't have some type of rental-like agreement. It would be based around you laboring rather than the ownership of the property itself generating a profit.
Define improved. All I need to do is build a cabin on it? Put a natural gas line in? Improving the land I own seems pretty subjective. What defines improved enough? What if I simply use it for hunting? I'm not allowed to own land only used for hunting then? I'm forced to build a tree stand or something on it? You see where this is going of course. It would be easy for someone to "improve" their owned land.
Yes, I do. Traditionally, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. @thepholosopher characterized this viewpoint as anarcho-communist in the video, but I would disagree and just say it's the traditional anarchist viewpoint. I'm of the opinion that capitalism requires state guaranteed privilege to function as it has in practice existed.
https://steempeak.com/voluntaryis/@larkenrose/oweoepzb
My definition of capitalism is private property and the right to make contracts. What is the definition you're using?
Private property is usually a point of contention between myself and proponents of a voluntaryist philosophy. I favor occupancy and use rather than government granted land titles. How would private property be established and enforced? Here's a comical take on the issue. In the comic, the capitalists are enclosing the commons (natural resources) and charging a rent for access.
That comic was a good illustration of what you're saying, thanks!
When I say private property I am referring to occupancy and use. I agree that the form of private property in the comic is illegitimate and would require a government to enforce.
Cool. I was probably splitting hairs a bit here. I mainly like to have the distinction to distance myself from the vulgar libertarianism that is often associated with self proclaimed anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists.
Why do we need government to enforce private property?
He's talking about situations like an individual claiming to own something like all the coconut trees on an island. The local residents would not allow that to happen, so the only way to enforce it would be through violence (i.e. government).
These absurd examples never work. How is one person going to even do what is suggested? It isn't possible. You wouldn't need violence to stop them either. How is one person going to guard all the trees? When they attack you, defend yourself.
There is a nuance problem in the cartoon. To 'own' all the ocean, or 'all the coconuts/trees' requires lending individual sovereignty to a social construct that would reinforce ownership of 'all the ocean' or 'all the coconuts/trees'. The only attempted type of social construct to ever attempt to establish reinforcement of entirety schemes of scale is either a manifestation of a type of socialism or communism.
Notice also in the cartoon, the only solution to such a entirety scheme is a violent revolution, and a entirety regime of rule by force.
It just means no ruler. A majority as a ruler is not any better than an individual as a ruler.
Ya, that is the dictionary definition, but history gives more context. The first self-proclaimed anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stated, "Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak." He was critical of both capitalism and communism. If you want to get technical with labels, you could call this mutualism.
Well, I disagree with him. Oligarchs love the idea of no private property too. It makes it easy to control people. I don't often quote people from the past because of all the inconsistencies that can be found from their writing. I grew up poor, and I have honestly accumulated plenty of private property. Nothing I have done has exploited anyone. I haven't robbed anyone either.
The cold hard truth is that a lot of people don't have property and only debts because they cannot control their spending and spend way more than they make. You don't have to make a lot to accumulate wealth either. All you have to do is spend less than you make. Someone living in a van for example can save a lot of fiat very quickly. What do they do with it then if buying property is immoral?
One of the main reasons I live in a van is because to me it's the closest comfortable approximation to occupancy and use based property rights that can be achieved in today's world. I don't pay rent or property taxes, but obviously have the vehicle costs to access the land. I'd rather save the money and work less so I can do things I enjoy.
Ya man. Once I gave up having to pay rent I knew I'd never go back. Feels so good.
Between a place I owned and was force to rent for a loss because I couldn't sell it and the rent for the other place I was living in, I was paying $3,150 a month at one point in my life. That was just the mortgage and rent! It's definitely a huge anchor around a person's neck. :(
Whoa, that is a heavy weight indeed!
Here in Virginia we pay "property tax" on vehicles. According to your beliefs then, it is wrong for me to own a property and rent it out to someone who voluntarily wants to rent it? I'm not there, but I own the property.
Ya, the fees vary by state but are generally low. It's not perfect. Absentee landlord rent and ownership of vacant and unimproved land that you withhold from someone using would be considered illegitimate. That's not to say you couldn't have some type of rental-like agreement. It would be based around you laboring rather than the ownership of the property itself generating a profit.
Define improved. All I need to do is build a cabin on it? Put a natural gas line in? Improving the land I own seems pretty subjective. What defines improved enough? What if I simply use it for hunting? I'm not allowed to own land only used for hunting then? I'm forced to build a tree stand or something on it? You see where this is going of course. It would be easy for someone to "improve" their owned land.