|
 Silversoul
Rhizome
 
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
 Property 
#4443057 - 07/23/05 12:47 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In other threads, Phred has implied that collectivism is inherently at odds with anarchy. I would agree to a certain extent, but would also like to point out that individualism(in the capitalist sense) is equally incompatible with it. What it all comes down to is the issue of property. Property is a complex issue which warrants a thorough investigation. There are some kinds of property which even collectivists agree should remain private. They call them "possessions," which would include things you can take with you, such as clothes, accessories, etc. This form of property would probably be the easiest to uphold without state intervention. On the other end of the spectrum, you have intellectual property, which is a creation of the state.
There are two major points of contention: land and capital. One can occupy land, and keep others out without much state intervention, but absentee landlordism would most certainly require the state to step in to enforce it. As a Georgist, I would say that land is our common inheritance, and that while it may be necessary to secure parts of it for personal use, land ownership cannot be justified when it extends beyond such use.
Capital, otherwise known as the means of production, is a major point among collectivists. I personally cannot see how it could belong to everyone without it being run by the state. Doing so would require them to shut down anyone who tries to engage in private enterprise. However, if you simply advocate the workers controlling the means of production, this requires no use of force. There are already worker collectives out there. But what would require force would be to get rid of wage labor altogether. Proudhoun, and his follower, Benjamin Tucker, supported ending state-maintained monopolies which held the worker down. In doing so, they believed, the worker's bargaining position would be so radically improved that they could organize and form collectives much easier. They would not abolish wage labor, but simply outcompete it. This form of voluntary collectivism is not at all coercive.
Anyway, back to subject at hand, I would say that neither anarcho-capitalists nor anarcho-socialists have it right 100%. Both of them have ideas about property which would require intervention from the state.
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
You just posted a thread on property and I just posted a thread on rights.
Why do we beat ourselves over the head with our complicated thoughts and theories, Paradigm? Sometimes I wish I was stupid.
We're nerds!!!
P.S. I will formulate a response to this thread when I get some time. I can't stop myself from doing it because I am a nerd.
Edited by RandalFlagg (07/23/05 01:34 PM)
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL
Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
P.S. I will formulate a response to this thread when I get some time. I can't stop myself from doing it because I am a nerd.
same here... right now i've got to decide whether to go out and party, or stay home and clean up this place... (gee i wonder what i'll choose!  )
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Anyway, back to subject at hand, I would say that neither anarcho-capitalists nor anarcho-socialists have it right 100%. Both of them have ideas about property which would require intervention from the state.
I see where you are coming from with this statement.
...I don't see any form of anarchy working.
We can talk about political theory or about what kind of government we might want all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that strong governments seem to be what survives. All of these hopes for utopian collectives or utopian free-markets don't pan out in the real world.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Hm...that's another point that you bring up that is worthy of discussion. Should land be seen as something that can be owned much like normal possessions are owned? How should land and its uses be regulated without trampling on people's rights? Is land ownership a right or a privilege?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I personally think our concept of "land ownership" needs to be changed to something more like "land tenancy" or "land stewardship."
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Evolving
silversoul7
1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa
phi1618
retread
JaguarWarrior101
Silversoul