As I see it, in a society one owns property because everyone else has agreed not to take it for one reason or another. Socialists propose to determine ownership (or "use rights," as some prefer) of unowned property democratically or by consensus (in other words, voluntarily). From the little I understand of Rothbard's views, he thought that someone gains ownership of land after transforming it--regardless of whether others in the community voluntarily acknowledge that person's right to the property. Thus, in capitalism property is ultimately obtained from the community involunarily.
What gives the community property rights, Fool on the Hill?
Fool on the Hill wrote:
Socialists propose to determine ... rights ... by consensus (in other words, voluntarily). ... in capitalism property is ultimately obtained from the community involunarily.
So when two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner, the lamb is a voluntary participant?
And unowned property is really owned property of the 'community'?
Mr. Fool, where do our rights come from, are we born with them or are they granted to us by consensus of the 'community'? If you answer the latter, then do realize that we are then little more than babbling masses of flesh owned by the 'community'.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
Isn't the asymetry of information a beautiful thing? Sorry if this rambles on and for any ambiguous use of language.
If you hope to understand the ancap position we need to come to an understanding and agreement on some things first. It appears consensus on defining capitalism and socialism is missing. Someone already posited some general ancap definitions. Capitalism: the private ownership and control over the means of production. Socialism: state ownership and control over the means of production. I have added control because it is entirely possible to hold title to some property and have the state dictate what you can or cannot do with 'your' property. Under capitalism the individual is sovereign; under socialism the state is sovereign.
To understand the position that capitalism is the natural outcome you must start from the beginning. Humans act. We use means to achieve ends. Property rights originate with our exclusive ownership and control of our own bodies. We face scarcity. We must economize. We specialize and engage in trade. Markets emerge as a result of human action.
The progression of markets and the rise of capitalism began with primitive tribal man. Even the most primitive peoples have specialization of labor and some private property, even beyond their own bodies. Just like us they face scarcity and must act. How did hunter gatherers advance to farming and animal husbandry? How did small farming communities turn into towns and cities? How did early cities become empires and nation states? Capital accumulation.
The power of human action is undeniable. The government here in the US spends trillions of dollars to prevent or persuade people from making certain exchanges/choices. They ban prostitution. They outlaw drugs. Yet I can have a hooker show up at my house within the hour who will bring cocaine and marijuana. All the state can ever do is distort the market. All any of the socialist fantasies and delusions about economics can result in is destruction. The empirical evidence is everywhere and goes back over a century. As long as humans act the market will exist. The more property rights (being free to make your own choices/exchanges included) are infringed, the more difficult it is for the market to operate.
Birthday Pony- You're obviously not getting anywhere with this discussion as you refuse to actually take the answers given to you. In place of "state" put "common ownership" or "collective ownership". If you say "not all socialists believe that" yada yada yada, you are just wrong, end of story.
Please listen to this http://mises.org/media/1235 Marx and Mercantilism by David Osterfield.
*stateless society
https://mises.org/journals/jls/2_4/2_4_3.pdf
If you are going to insist that only a socialist can define socialism I don't see you getting very far in understanding the ancap position. I am not offering my own definitions. I am paraphrasing the Mises and the other Austrians defined capitalism and socialism. If you want citations, ask.
Anyway, let's break ownership down into possibilities...
1. No one owns anything. Nothing belongs to any individual or group of individuals. Everyone is free to do whatever they wish with whatever they come across. I see a woman on the street, she can't own herself so I am free to use her body however I see fit. I see a nice car in a parking lot; I am free to hop in and drive away (I doubt there would even be cars in such a world). In this world might makes right. In order for this world to exist he concept of property would have to be non-existant.
2. The state/collective/group/tribe owns everything. Commitees/councils/legislatures make most decisions. The individual becomes chattel of the rulers. Force is used against individuals who do not comply. Another world where might makes right.
3. A single individual, i.e. the king, owns everything. The individual is chattel. Might still makes right.
4. Some things are owned by the state, some things are owned by individuals. While the individual has some property rights, the state is still sovereign. There are a wide range of possibilites here. This is the realm of the "mixed economy." Most modern countries fall somewhere in this category.
5. Individuals own everything. The only way to acquire anything is through free trade. The individual is sovereign. Consumer becomes king. The culture is one of cooperation and respect not one of force and subjugation.
Those are all the ones I an think of. As you can see only one possibility is consitent with liberty. If you have some other possibilites I would like to see them.
The LTV is dead. You can try to spin it into subjective LTV, but it wont change the following facts. Labor is paid a wage commesurate with the marginal productivity of the labor before the product of his labor is sold. The entrepreneur only gets paid his profit if he calculated correctly and he is able to sell his product for more than his cost of the factors of production. This distinction of how and when a person gets paid is too important to overlook. There is no exploitation in a free exchange.
Marissa: What gives the community property rights, Fool on the Hill?
bbnet: And unowned property is really owned property of the 'community'?
The community owns it in the sense that anyone who wanders on it is free to use it. So I guess it's really what you would call unowned property. Where capitalists and socialists might differ is if one individual thought he were entitled to chop down an entire forest, the socialist community might feel it has the right to stop the person from doing so, where in a capitalist society an individual would not only be able to chop down a forest but doing so would give him exclusive rights over the property for eternity (from my understanding, correct me if this is not their view).
Maybe if it's by consensus. Not if it's democratic. I'm not really thinking in terms of votes though. I'm thinking more practically. If someone farms a plot of land and no one else decides to farm it, then in a sense the community has decided to let that land be his to farm. But the next year someone else might want to farm it, so this decision isn't fixed.
I think we are thinking of property in a different way. I'm thinking of property rights as what a person actually controls--what is acknowledged by the community--where I gather others here are thinking of them as what the community should acknowledge by the rationale of some natural process.
I'd probably say that they result from a dialectic process between the self and the other. The (rest of the) community tells me what they're going to give me, but I have the ability to respond in a variety of ways, which in turn has an affect on how the community behaves. So we are not born with them, but rather we must negotiate them through a continuing interactive process. I'm not owned by the community, but part of it.
I should emphasize that I am not all that familiar with how libertarian socialists propose society to be organized--I'm much more familiar with their critique of capitalism. Pony can probably give a better representation of the position(s).
3. A single individual, i.e. the king, owns everything. The individual is chattel. Might still makes right. 5. Individuals own everything. The only way to acquire anything is through free trade. The individual is sovereign. Consumer becomes king. The culture is one of cooperation and respect not one of force and subjugation.
If you are going to lump a tribe and a state into the same category, then surely these belong together as well.
"I am not trolling, but you have picked up on the paradoxical nature of defining capitalism as voluntary trade. Defining capitalism as "voluntary trade" leads us to this: Capitalism is voluntary trade All anarchists support voluntary trade (which would include socialist anarchists) Socialist anarchists are capitalists. Now do you see the problem with that definition?"
Dogs are animals.
All cats are animals.
Therefore, all cats are dogs.
Do you see the problem with your logic? In fact, you took it a step further. What you really said was something more like this:
All PETA members support animals.
Therefore, all PETA members are dogs.
One thing must follow from the other, or you haven't made an argument. Toodles.
"And really, an employer can only make a profit if conditions outside the workplace are such that it is reasonable for a laborer to sell their time. Given the choice, most people would rather be in the position of employers than employees"
Unless they have an easy, high-paying job.
"unless we start using gross justifications about how the working class isn't smart enough to handle management, too scared, or too lazy."
Who is this working class? Are managers not part of the working class? What about secretaries? Are they the working class? They usually have a lot of administrative-like duties. Are they semi-workers? We need to figure out what group of people you are talking about before we can go on to the obvious next question, which is WHO THE HELL SAYS ANY OF THAT SMART, SCARED OR LAZY CRAP? The implication you make is that employers only hire people who are incompetent or unwilling to do the job. If that is the case, then A) how the hell are they still in business, and B) is it really safe to be driving a car built by such people?
"I do not think at all that wage labor is necessarily a bloody, horrible exploitative endeavor any time it occurs. The history of capital accumulation is not, however, a peaceful one of voluntary exchange."
Good, because there probably aren't many examples you can cite outside of the public sector. And you are right. the history of capital accumulation is full of violence, because stealing is a way to acquire capital.
"In order for capital accumulation to really be justified, we would have to start from scratch."
What the hell does that even mean? How is it unjustified in the first place? I mean, if you want to get technical, justification is in the eye of the beholder. And what do you mean 'start from scratch'? At what zero-point? At whose arbitrary standard? WHERE!?
Even assuming the rest of your reasoning is fine, from "all A are B" and "all C are B" does not follow "all C are A".
A = Capitalists, B = "people who support capitalism", C = Anarchist socialists
If you really need a counter-example, take A = men, B = humans, C = women.
Hey thanks for posting this Birthday Pony, I'm finding this discussion very informative.
There are huge semantical problems, when Anarchists speak of capitalism they mainly refer to state-monopoly capitalism, while AnCaps mean free-market capitalism.
And the definitions of socialist range even wider over the map.
Ignore the confusion on this thread. The starting point cannot be 'the means of production' or just 'voluntary trade'. The definitions can be reduced to the most base form of physical action. To really understand the anarcho-capitalism definitions consider Hans Hoppe
Socialism - A social system based on institutionalised interference with or aggression against private property.
Capitalism - A social system based on explicit recognition of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.
AnCaps adhere strictly to the natural rights position of property rights in the body (Self-Ownership) and property rights in physical objects (homesteaded goods or goods aquired through voluntary exchange).
All the above is approached through the non-aggression principle, ie aggression may only be used in 'response' to the 'initiation' of physical force against a person or their property.
Anarcho-capitalism tries to be a subjective-less or value-free system. ie deontological and rule based.
Anarcho-capitalists also have a strong definition of what 'rights' are. For example if you have a 'right' this also means other people have an 'obligation' to provide you that right. ie You have a right NOT to be physically assaulted - my obligation then is NOT to commit such an act. This is a negative right (implying no positive action need be taken by me). But what if you have a 'right' to free health care? That means I have an 'obligation' to provide you with it (a positive right).
Anarcho-capitalists only believe in negative rights. Any positive right means that to fulfill such rights will require involuntary servitude or appropriation of someone's property. One may voluntarily provide you with free health care, and that is great, but you do not have a 'right' to it.
So knowing the above definitions tightens things up considerably when trying to understand where AnCaps fit into the grand scheme of Anarchism. We think this....all other forms of Anarchism are at some point going to propose an aggressive act against a person or their property based on collective will, justice, equality e.t.c
I'm interested in what you think of these concepts, as the Anarchist viewpoints of AnCaps I have seen so far seem to be in relation to vague concepts of collective rights and ethics.
voluntary trade is a broad category that encompasses both socialism and capitalism, and is still inadequate
Ugh, you proved your complicated posts were inconsistent, congratulations.
Back to the topic, the big difference between anarcho socialists and anarcho capitalists is that while capitalists embrace voluntary trade unconditionally, socialists allow it only until they like the results. The moment they spot some imaginary unfairness, they will jump and twist your arm EVEN if you were conducting a fully voluntary exchange. It's like "you can have the car in any color provided it is black".
"A very certain type of private property that is. I tend to think that capitalism's wage labor system is the defining characteristic. Private property has been supported by certain strains of socialism, and all the talk of negative rights and respecting the institution of property can be applied just as well to Mutualism. It is capitalism that makes an exception that allows absentee landlords, the ownership of more property than one can work, and wage labor where laborers are simply a production cost."
Are you saying that generally anarchists support private property as far as labor exchange, but when it comes to property titles such as land e.t.c they are re-distributive? Or land in excess of what one can use personally? The definition of Socialism I used does not take into account values and justice, it is just a definition of the physical action inherent to Socialism.
"This is also the starting point of socialist thought. That property has been stolen from the laborer, subsistence farmer, renter, indigenous, etc., and if you look at the history of capitalism (things like the enclosure movement, the extraction of resources during the colonial period), it's extremely hard to argue that claim. Moreover, now that capital and property have been acquired by violence, the maintenance of said property rests upon the threat of violence"
Thanks for this. Here lies the great philosophical divide in clarity. So if I use my labor in exchange for some commodities (money), and transfer title of that money for a house that I keep empty, I am aggressing against you? And maintaining my property is actually a threat of violence against you? This is just illogical mental gymnastics, an open door to justify any sort of violence and aggression against anyone and anything based on whims feelings and thoughts. That is why those with egalitarian envy and propensity towards domination over their fellow man are so drawn to Socialism.
btw I understand the point of stolen land from indigenous people, such as Palestinians who are actually still alive, but you have to draw the line. If you justify violence and aggression based on the fact that in distant history this piece of land was stolen somehow, then we all may as well just take to the streets with a hatchet. And who is to be compensated? Am I to be compensated for actions taken against my great, great grandfather? It is this very concept that people go to war over vague links to ones ancestral land or feelings of social justice. I’m not saying this is your position, and I can see Anarchists have very clear rules of what they consider to be just, but you just said that property was at some ‘stolen’ from farmers, renter, indigenous people e.t.c Can you not see this entire concept is just the path to war and death, nothing more? Anarcho-capitalism gives very clear rules on property titles. A prosperous and safe society is what naturally evolves from adhering to these property rights. And this is the other important difference - AnCaps do not recognize ‘groups’ such as farmers, renters, labourers e.t.c only individuals and individual rights. We see group identity as a surreptitiousway of one ‘group’ unjustly violating and appropriating property from individuals. Universal equality for all, not different rules.
"In general, anarchists support private property in terms of what is being used or in some instances what is kept and maintained by an individual or group while not being used to extract profit from external use. There is no "redistribution" or anything of that matter. What is "private property" depends on who is using it, generally speaking." I see. What happens if an individual buys a new house, but decides to rent out their old house to another under a voluntary agreement to recieve physical goods, ie money?
Under Anarchism does this mean he is extracting profit and thus not allowed? And what actions are then taken to rectify this situation.
Birthday Pony:The point is not to disallow arrangements everyone is happy with...
So, anyone showing up anywere or holding/controlling anything at any point in time has a "valid" claim to such location/property and socialists are concerned about making everyone happy? Presumably there's a Central Committee optimally allocating such happiness? Or would it be achieved via a decentralized socialistic free-for-all? Sounds intriguing.
I now understand the theory a lot more. There is no 'State' that will come along and appropriate property from people like under the various forms of Socialism. It is more a 'hands on' approach to property titles, where what a person is currently using, living or working with can be under dispute as to it's ownership.
Is there a defining line as to what consitutes exploitation in this theory or is it more vague? But you certainly cannot you claim there is no redistribution of anything. In these cases there is an involuntary transfer (theft) of property titles, whether land or other goods, based on the whims of percieved social justice.
Putting aside value and moral judgements, what do Anarchists see the economic effects will be? Do they think that society will be more productive and prosperous (like Socialists do) or do they accept a poorer more humble standard of living as the price to pay for Anarchism?
"The point is that (people) simply allow people to extract profit from what is theirs..."
Like when a firm pays their employees, the firm is allowing these people to extract profit from what is theirs?
"Just like workers may withdraw their consent from a labor contract and begin to sell what they produce directly."
So these workers can sell and produce high order goods like an automobile, refrigerator, or stove? Why do they work in a corporate owned sweaty factory then?
"Most of the individualist anarchists did not really care for large industry and production and were content to have owner-occupied subsistence farming and artisan economies."
Were these individualist anarchists forcibly removed from their farms and workshops or did they fade away like in Utopia, Ohio?
"The anarchists across Europe in the 30's and in Latin America now have continued to produce in worker managed factories with less overhead costs, more jobs, and better conditions. "
Give me a free factory and starting inventory and we'll all be rockin and rollin at least untill the factory wears out.
So armed robbery is ok with you?
"The anarchists across Europe in the 30's and in Latin America now have continued to produce in worker managed factories with less overhead costs, more jobs, and better conditions. I think it would most likely make a few people less rich and most people richer or have no effect at all."
If I was able to steal someone elses property and unjustly enrich myself, then yes, I would have less overheads, better conditions, and could expand my own business and create more jobs. Whats you are missing is 'that which is what is not seen'. You only see the narrow aspect of a few people benefiting at the expense of a rich capitalist. What you ignore is the overall economic effect of such acts.
The economic effect of Anarchism is this..... With a culture of violation and appropriation of property the time preference of individuals changes. There becomes less incentive to invest, produce and contract, because the returns on such activities have been lowered. There is then less production, less investment, less contracting. The end result is more poverty and an overall fall in the standard of living.
If you like the hard subsistance lifestyle, this is fine, but do not expect to easily afford TV's, washing machines, a new stainless steel fireplace or any good than involves heavy industry or a long chain of production. Simply because the incentive of entrepreneurs to produce such complex goods have now been lowered, thus such goods will become much more scarce, expensive and unnafforable to buy, relative to standard income.
200 years ago it took 6 months of labor to buy a pair of leather boots, but now it only takes 1 day of labor to purchase those same boots. The reason why the cost was so high relative to labor back then was the lack of industry, factories, capital and investment.
The economic effects of institutionalized property theft that Anarchism proposes will eventually lead to scarcity of production and a higher amount of labor required to purchase everyday goods.
Are you able to actually see this? Or have you made up your mind to deny the reality of the incentive structure of how and why humans actually act, and what the economic effects will be.
Socialism - A social system based on institutionalised interference with or aggression against private property. Capitalism - A social system based on explicit recognition of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.
You could reverse this:
Socialism - A social system based on explicit recognition of another's right to unused property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between individuals.
Capitalism - A social system based on institutionalised protection of private property and of non-aggressive, voluntary exchange between private property owners.
If everyone were permitted to freely take from one another, and everyone held this belief, then there would be little violence or poverty. It is only when one prevents someone from stealing that violence enters into the equation. No one would amass wealth as those stolen from would be free to take their possessions back. Those with less would be more willing to spend their time stealing, whereas those with more would be the first to realize that stealing was a waste of time. Once equilibrium is reached, production would continue as normal as it would take less time to produce something new than it would be to steal something only to have the person (who now has less and thus needs it more) steal it back. Of course anarcho-communists wouldn't think of it as stealing, but as sharing. Once people stop valuing their labor for what material gains it brings them, they will start valuing it for intrinsic reasons. People will view farming or construction as a means of exercise, software development and engineering as intellectual stimulation. In fact, creativity flourishes more when external rewards are removed, as the following video demonstrates: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html. To say that creative activity must be rewarded is to devalue creative activity. You only reward people for doing things they don't want to do otherwise. A society that rewards creativity is a society that wants to receive the fruits of creativity without engaging in creativity. It is a society whose highest ideal is to be a fat, mindless consumer who never engages in any creative or productive activity but has everything brought to him. It is a society that sees work as nothing but an unfortunate task that must be done to acheive this ideal.