You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Intro to Anarchy with The Pholosopher
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.
I don't think it's an absurd example, it's basically what's happening around the world right now with government and corporations working together.
An example, Nestlé buying up water rights all over the place, and saying water isn't a human right. Why can they do that? Because government will back up their claim to property with guns.
That's fascism or corporatism, not capitalism. It has nothing to do with property rights as they should be. Nestle is allowed to get away with what they are doing because of government, yes. They would never be able to get away with it without a government. Are they going to raise and pay for an army to steal and secure all the land without a government? Armies are expensive.
Maybe this will help clear up some nuance in defining non-social(ist) capitalism:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@joesal/removing-social-constructs-from-capitalism
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.