"Anarchocapitalism is based around Rothbard's natural law theory, the non-aggression axiom/principle, and Hoppe's argumentation ethic, all of which are based on the assumption that the concept of ownership exists as an absolute, abstract object that we all must think of in the same terms, and that it can be permanently linked to someone based on "rights". But "rights" don't naturally occur, they must be maintained by society. Which makes ownership the capability to *control* resources."
Those are his thoughts. What do you think?
This describes only a specific brand of AnCapism, which for some unexplicable reason is called Rothbard's propertarianism ;)
One radically different approach is using utilitarian arguments (e.g., David D. Friedman - don't forget the middle D).
I think there is a surface legitimacy to it because if you define property in some way that gives you a 'right' to use what ancaps would consider someone else's property, then the system breaks down. However in that case it comes down to whether or not either side can justify its definition of property. Nor does ancapism necessarily require a strict Rothbardian approach to property. It's perfectly possible in a purely free system that the generally accepted practice toward property use wouldn't be as strict. For example, the free market punishment for shooting a tespasser might be pretty severe in the end if the market judgement tends to be you should give people a break and, as long as they're not causing trouble, let them cross your land without explicit permission.
The underlying assumption which backs a lot of objections to strict private property rights is that people will behave like dicks and not share what they own. The opposite is true in my view. The more wealthy people become, the more likely they are to be charitable and make allowances. And, the more likely they are to ostracize or punish people who aren't reasonable in their judgement.
So in the end all ancapism requires is people voluntarily workout the definition of property.
But "rights" don't naturally occur, they must be maintained by society. Which makes ownership the capability to *control* resources."
He's exactly right. Rights are a social construct, and 'own' means 'control'. More interesting questions are... - what does he propose - do you agree and why
Nonsense. He rejects the idea that ownership exists as an absolute outside of the realm of social structure, and then reachese the exact opposite conclusion -- that ownership is determined by an absolute factor outside the realm of social structures.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Great point, Mikachusetts. I wonder if TronCat's friend is even aware that he contradicted himself.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Another question to ask is why then to do people under certain circumstances react to another's perfect ability to control a resource as unjust?
At root then, isn't he just avoiding an argument about the right and wrong, or acceptable vs unacceptable means of controlling resources?
Concept of ownership is commonly accepted as an absolute outside of an cap. The only people that tend to disagree in theory are marxists, who ironically tend to be quick to prevent their iphone from being stolen when I asked if it could be shared with myself on a long term loan.
I don't know what he means by permanently linked to someone based on "rights". Rothbard's natural rights uses deductive reasoning and other forms of logic to make the case for natural rights. Where he makes it clear that individuals have rights due to being conscious human beings and not due to society.
Advise person in op to read Ethics of Liberty. Ask him if he was stranded on an island and built himself a house and someone came to that island would that new comer have the right to rape, steal from and murder him, just because there would be no society present to link "rights" to the individual?
I don't quite understand how his conclusion is an abstract. Isn't he correct that 'ownership = control'?
Ownership is the ability to deny the use of an object.
So if i have a pencil X, i can give it to you to control it for y amount of time, then give it back to me. But if you ask me to use the pencil i can deny your use of it.
Private property ownership is then derived from Self Ownership.
If I own my self, then anything that I manufacture, is mine.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Isn't he correct that 'ownership = control'?
Even if it were the case that ownership = control (and its not), the issue is that such a conclusion flies in the face of his initial claims. He starts out saying that ownership is a social construct, not some absolute principle that exists "out there." Fine. But his conclusion (ownership=control) not only blatently contradicts the observable facts regarding how ownership is treated in ANY society, it posits an absolute principle which stands outside of society by which we can determine ownership.
I'm still not keen on "natural rights" so yeah...