Thoughts on Anarchism

[gnarlylove]

Except as I've already pointed out, the natives did have a claim to the land. They were the original owners of the land because they homesteaded the land themselves. That a government came along and exterminated them is not evidence of property rights, but rather evidence that property rights have been violated. You want to vilify private property for the crimes of imperialist and expansionist governments, but I'm afraid that's not going to fly.

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

Why think those who homestead land own it? Again, pragmatism asks if you will be so kind to produce one practical difference between owning a thing and not. Just because I repeatedly use a tooth brush and call it mine, a personal item of familiarity, gives me no right to own it and therefore dispose of it how I see fit. Surely if I had no involvement in its design or inception I must therefore not have any claim of ownership. The object owned by another that did not make or participate in its crafting is a strange concept indeed but is the foundation of wage labor surplus leading to profit.

Homesteading offers no reason to think we own something and we must keep in mind what "to own" means. It means you have entire rights to dispose of the thing owned as your heart desires. Homesteading sounds quite the opposite: it involves cultivating it and treating it with responsibility and care because not only does how you dispose of it affect you (as property makes you think) but also benefits or harms every other creature on the planet if used responsibly. Property and ownership frees you up from responsibility. The police and army are not granted access to those property owners. They cannot enforce certain common-sense laws on private land, many others are exempt with permits like coal companies in WV, dumping tens of thousands of gallons of waste on "their property." Property allows you to do what you want in order to achieve short-term ends, neglecting long term costs. It is property and no other concept that creates this absurd condition we see in operation, neglecting the future.

Your mythologizing of property is disgusting. It has a distinct history and those who owned property saw unprecedented opportunity to grab more property as did everyone who came to America. We know who came out on top, the Rockerfellers etc. That's because property owners forged an alliance with the government, as they always do in every single case and would do all over again and you'd have to be blind not see this relationship (see All the President's Bankers). They do this because they understand what it means to have property (you clearly don't have a modern clue what property is except for some myth). You cannot extricate out your fancy theory on property that property owners do not respect or abide by. Your idea of property is not property as such, but some sterilized possessive-ness that says homesteading is a key source of property. Sounds completely ad hoc for you to claim that. Property simply does not inhere that way...it operates according to prices, not homesteading..and for you to wish for the success of capitalism you should have known this.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

While living in a rural area of the US a while back I posited a situation just like this. Say a small town of 5000 people just decided to "quit" one day. They have almost everything they need and go back to barter for their economy. Not exactly anarchy but not exactly capitalism.

Why would they need to revert back to barter? The market could easily create a commodity currency for them to use.

Currency must be avoided on the grounds that speculation on the currency that really exists may overtake many more times that which really exists, the actual currency. "In retrospect, it is clear that this “inverted relation” was a built-in possibility for capitalism from the start. But it was one that could materialize only in a definite stage of the development of the system. The abstract possibility lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start." [emp added]
The Financialization of Capitalism

Everyone estimates at least 70% of the economy is speculative and 30% real. Some even estimate, and probably accurately, its higher: 95% speculative/5% real. This is intrinsic to currency. I don't believe we should end currency now (that is long ways off), perhaps instead a local currency like the Lewis Pound will suffice for now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except as I've already pointed out, the natives did have a claim to the land. They were the original owners of the land because they homesteaded the land themselves. That a government came along and exterminated them is not evidence of property rights, but rather evidence that property rights have been violated. You want to vilify private property for the crimes of imperialist and expansionist governments, but I'm afraid that's not going to fly.

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

Why think those who homestead land own it? Again, pragmatism asks if you will be so kind to produce one practical difference between owning a thing and not. Just because I repeatedly use a tooth brush and call it mine, a personal item of familiarity, gives me no right to own it and therefore dispose of it how I see fit. Surely if I had no involvement in its design or inception I must therefore not have any claim of ownership. The object owned by another that did not make or participate in its crafting is a strange concept indeed but is the foundation of wage labor surplus leading to profit.

Homesteading offers no reason to think we own something and we must keep in mind what "to own" means. It means you have entire rights to dispose of the thing owned as your heart desires. Homesteading sounds quite the opposite: it involves cultivating it and treating it with responsibility and care because not only does how you dispose of it affect you (as property makes you think) but also benefits or harms every other creature on the planet if used responsibly. Property and ownership frees you up from responsibility. The police and army are not granted access to those property owners. They cannot enforce certain common-sense laws on private land, many others are exempt with permits like coal companies in WV, dumping tens of thousands of gallons of waste on "their property." Property allows you to do what you want in order to achieve short-term ends, neglecting long term costs. It is property and no other concept that creates this absurd condition we see in operation, neglecting the future.

Your mythologizing of property is disgusting. It has a distinct history and those who owned property saw unprecedented opportunity to grab more property as did everyone who came to America. We know who came out on top, the Rockerfellers etc. That's because property owners forged an alliance with the government, as they always do in every single case and would do all over again and you'd have to be blind not see this relationship (see All the President's Bankers). They do this because they understand what it means to have property (you clearly don't have a modern clue what property is except for some myth). You cannot extricate out your fancy theory on property that property owners do not respect or abide by. Your idea of property is not property as such, but some sterilized possessive-ness that says homesteading is a key source of property. Sounds completely ad hoc for you to claim that. Property simply does not inhere that way...it operates according to prices, not homesteading..and for you to wish for the success of capitalism you should have known this.

You're throwing a lot of adjectives my way, such as "evil" and "disgusting," that are starting to make me think this conversation is less productive than I'd originally hoped.

 

[gnarlylove]

Explain how homesteading indicates property ownership. What practical difference/benefits does ownership of homesteaded land offer that un-owned homesteaded land?

Evil is an apt description used in the context I presented it. President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, [to be] among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement.”

Disgusting indicates that I am also growing tired of your round about views. You have yet to identify one reason why someone owns something as opposed to simple utility and familiarity. Moreover, you don't even use the meaning of property as all men of property do, namely that property is represented through titles, not homesteading.

It surely is sad among those overt problems in your theory you hone in on two spicy words that offend you leaving aside the obvious criticisms that you are not straightforwardly answering. I still hold out hope that you can provide answers to the questions I raised in bold.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Explain how homesteading indicates property ownership. What practical difference/benefits does ownership of homesteaded land offer that un-owned homesteaded land?

Evil is an apt description used in the context I presented it. President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, [to be] among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement.”

Disgusting indicates that I am also growing tired of your round about views. You have yet to identify one reason why someone owns something as opposed to simple utility and familiarity. Moreover, you don't even use the meaning of property as all men of property do, namely that property is represented through titles, not homesteading.

It surely is sad among those overt problems in your theory you hone in on two spicy words that offend you leaving aside the obvious criticisms that you are not straightforwardly answering. I still hold out hope that you can provide answers to the questions I raised in bold.

I don't see the point now. Insulting people is boring and renders discussion impossible. If that's what you're into then there are plenty of others on this site who would be willing to engage you.

 

[Indeependent]

Explain how homesteading indicates property ownership. What practical difference/benefits does ownership of homesteaded land offer that un-owned homesteaded land?

Evil is an apt description used in the context I presented it. President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, [to be] among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement.”

Disgusting indicates that I am also growing tired of your round about views. You have yet to identify one reason why someone owns something as opposed to simple utility and familiarity. Moreover, you don't even use the meaning of property as all men of property do, namely that property is represented through titles, not homesteading.

It surely is sad among those overt problems in your theory you hone in on two spicy words that offend you leaving aside the obvious criticisms that you are not straightforwardly answering. I still hold out hope that you can provide answers to the questions I raised in bold.

Just passing by but I believe you have kicked some major a$$.

 

[oldfart]

Except as I've already pointed out, the natives did have a claim to the land. They were the original owners of the land because they homesteaded the land themselves. That a government came along and exterminated them is not evidence of property rights, but rather evidence that property rights have been violated. You want to vilify private property for the crimes of imperialist and expansionist governments, but I'm afraid that's not going to fly.

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

Why think those who homestead land own it? Again, pragmatism asks if you will be so kind to produce one practical difference between owning a thing and not. Just because I repeatedly use a tooth brush and call it mine, a personal item of familiarity, gives me no right to own it and therefore dispose of it how I see fit. Surely if I had no involvement in its design or inception I must therefore not have any claim of ownership. The object owned by another that did not make or participate in its crafting is a strange concept indeed but is the foundation of wage labor surplus leading to profit.

Homesteading offers no reason to think we own something and we must keep in mind what "to own" means. It means you have entire rights to dispose of the thing owned as your heart desires. Homesteading sounds quite the opposite: it involves cultivating it and treating it with responsibility and care because not only does how you dispose of it affect you (as property makes you think) but also benefits or harms every other creature on the planet if used responsibly. Property and ownership frees you up from responsibility. The police and army are not granted access to those property owners. They cannot enforce certain common-sense laws on private land, many others are exempt with permits like coal companies in WV, dumping tens of thousands of gallons of waste on "their property." Property allows you to do what you want in order to achieve short-term ends, neglecting long term costs. It is property and no other concept that creates this absurd condition we see in operation, neglecting the future.

Your mythologizing of property is disgusting. It has a distinct history and those who owned property saw unprecedented opportunity to grab more property as did everyone who came to America. We know who came out on top, the Rockerfellers etc. That's because property owners forged an alliance with the government, as they always do in every single case and would do all over again and you'd have to be blind not see this relationship (see All the President's Bankers). They do this because they understand what it means to have property (you clearly don't have a modern clue what property is except for some myth). You cannot extricate out your fancy theory on property that property owners do not respect or abide by. Your idea of property is not property as such, but some sterilized possessive-ness that says homesteading is a key source of property. Sounds completely ad hoc for you to claim that. Property simply does not inhere that way...it operates according to prices, not homesteading..and for you to wish for the success of capitalism you should have known this.

"We do not inherit the earth from our fathers, we borrow it from our grandchildren."

 

[oldfart]

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

In the neoclassical tradition you are relying on, this is only true when property owners are immortal. What logical incentive to preserve the property does an owner of age 90 with no heirs have? Will he not logically get what he can for his remaining years, regardless of the consequences of others? Or is altruism so important to him that it overcomes he own pecuniary interest? A strange position that the Smithian invisible hand must be assisted by the Dickensian ghosts to make competition work!

 

[oldfart]

You're throwing a lot of adjectives my way, such as "evil" and "disgusting," that are starting to make me think this conversation is less productive than I'd originally hoped.

The CDZ was created for robust discussions of issues without personal attacks. You appear to take robust assaults on ideas personally. This is not a forum created to protect thin-skinned individuals from criticism of their ideas, even colorful, evocative, or charged criticism.

Perhaps you post in the wrong place, if all you seek is confirmation bias.

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't see the point now. Insulting people is boring and renders discussion impossible. If that's what you're into then there are plenty of others on this site who would be willing to engage you.

Sorry you feel that way. If you must identify yourself with ideas of property so essentially, than those ideas are harmful to your human and intellectual form. You are not your thoughts and beliefs. I rebuked a concept of property you espouse because it lacks coherence and I explained why. As I have repeated many times I respect you. This sentiment remains true but as for your intellectual character, I find it wanting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

In the neoclassical tradition you are relying on, this is only true when property owners are immortal. What logical incentive to preserve the property does an owner of age 90 with no heirs have? Will he not logically get what he can for his remaining years, regardless of the consequences of others? Or is altruism so important to him that it overcomes he own pecuniary interest? A strange position that the Smithian invisible hand must be assisted by the Dickensian ghosts to make competition work!

I'm not relying on the neoclassical tradition at all, and the 90 year old property owner has every incentive for preserving their property for the benefit of their heirs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're throwing a lot of adjectives my way, such as "evil" and "disgusting," that are starting to make me think this conversation is less productive than I'd originally hoped.

The CDZ was created for robust discussions of issues without personal attacks. You appear to take robust assaults on ideas personally. This is not a forum created to protect thin-skinned individuals from criticism of their ideas, even colorful, evocative, or charged criticism.

Perhaps you post in the wrong place, if all you seek is confirmation bias.

By calling property rights "evil" and "disgusting" he is essentially calling anybody who supports the idea of property rights evil and disgusting. That is a personal attack, and even if it wasn't it still renders further discussion pointless. How exactly am I supposed to respond to somebody who calls my views evil and disgusting in a rational manner?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see the point now. Insulting people is boring and renders discussion impossible. If that's what you're into then there are plenty of others on this site who would be willing to engage you.

Sorry you feel that way. If you must identify yourself with ideas of property so essentially, than those ideas are harmful to your human and intellectual form. You are not your thoughts and beliefs. I rebuked a concept of property you espouse because it lacks coherence and I explained why. As I have repeated many times I respect you. This sentiment remains true but as for your intellectual character, I find it wanting.

Yes, and I attempted to explain my position and to answer your criticisms and I was rewarded with insults. I'm not sure I'm particularly concerned with how you view my intellectual character, frankly. After all, it was you who put an end to the rational discussion by resorting to name calling, not me.

 

[gnarlylove]

Name calling? Please cite your reference. I think you must be joking. Again, from my understanding your ideas are incoherent as far as you've explained them. I think your divorcing of property from its history is a major disservice and intellectually dishonest move, hence I called it disgusting. You are side stepping a crucial point of the origins of property, it use and features. Homesteading. Are you kidding me? You have really failed on nearly all accounts to satisfy my questions. This appears to be a ploy to end discussion on your part. I can't explain it any other way because I still have plenty of serious criticisms of your view and many you have yet to answer that have already been put to you 3 times now. If you care to be serious at all, then begin by answering how we tell the difference between ownership and mere use/familiarity.