The concept of ownership is a complete fraud. If you accept the concept the ownership, then you must accept the fact that one person can own the entire planet and everything on it. Or how about the universe? All reality itself?
this is of course not me saying this but it is a critique that I have heard of ownership. What are some of your responses to this quote?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
If you adhere strictly to a narrow principle of property rights, then sure, you must accept that a person is within his rights to homestead and buy all goods on the planet. So? And not that this person is making any sense to begin with, but where does the fraud come in?
Of course, those who fancy Locke can fall back on the Lockean proviso, that enough and as good is left over for others. But that can easily be taken to the other extreme, in which no one may own anything.
It's a silly non sequitur.
I'm also inclined to think that it's a statist projection, since world government is pretty much where you're forced to run if you cling to basic statist premises when pressed.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: The concept of ownership is a complete fraud. If you accept the concept the ownership, then you must accept the fact that one person can own the entire planet and everything on it. Or how about the universe? All reality itself? this is of course not me saying this but it is a critique that I have heard of ownership. What are some of your responses to this quote?
I think it's damn funny. We better discuss it fast, or all libertarian philosophy collapses right now.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
By that logic, you can also build a castle in the sky. But you have no means of getting there do you?
All ownership really means in possession. How can you not accept the idea of possession?
Diminishing returns means that it is actually to the benefit of a person that owns the entire universe to subdivide it and sell it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I want to know where he lives. Because he doesn't reject libertarian property rights as such, but apparently _any_ (limited) concept of property though. Very interesting...
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
yes... he is another one of those''left'' anarchists
Technically it's possible but in reality no one could achieve that before anyone else homesteaded it.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Izzy:this is of course not me saying this but it is a critique that I have heard of ownership. What are some of your responses to this quote?
Then, I tell him that I am not worried about such a problem because EVEN IF God came down and declared one lowly man to be the rightful owner of the entire planet, the rest of the people will always have an opportunity to threaten a revolt and wrestle that ownership away from him. Protecting your ownership of property is never cheap. That is ancap and it is hardly an original problem.
Yes that argument is usually held by Communists so that the next step in the argument is "since nobody owns anything, the state then has to come in and control everything." (and the secret corollary is that now the state also has the right to kill and confiscate from the "haves" with the blessing of the "have nots")
Here is a possible response.
If nobody owns anything, that is exactly the scenario that would lead to one person or one group (the strongest) taking control and owning or rather controlling everything (temporarily) There would be no courts protecting others from this person or government "controlling" everything, even though they wouldn't call it ownership. But even in these impossible scenarios, some kind of free market rental or illegal use of hunting grounds would evolve and some form of barter would be needed, even if it is sexual favors or being each other bodyguard..
In a world where ownership is recognized, and free enterprise rules apply, it is impossible for one person to own everything because: (It's called the "Who takes out the garbage" argument)