Property Sucks
What's wrong with property?
The thing about "property" that I find most objectionable is that the idea is used to justify violence. Violence is framed in terms of self-defense when a person decides to assert property rights on an external object.
When the argument is made that idea of property has its basis in so called "self-ownership," an abstraction is created from the right to defend one's personal integrity. That single aspect of the complex relationship between me and my self is divorced of its context and applied to external objects.
We have to ask ourselves: what purpose does this serve?
The new concept that has been created is presented as the justification to say "If I catch you using that thing, I have the right to respond with violence just as if you were trying to kill me"
Clearly you have the right to defend your brother if he is being attacked. But you don't own him, and it would be a rather silly argument to make that you do. Or even your neighbor, for that matter. You don't own your neighbor, but that shouldn't stop you from coming to his defense.
Since the concept isn't necessary to justify defending another person, no case can be made that it is necessary to justify one's right to defend themselves.
What it is necessary for, is to provide cover for those who want to assert a claim to an external object, and who want to defend that claim with violence or intimidation. Almost invariably, those who argue for such rights wish to see them extend to things ever further removed from their own bodies... Such as fields and factories.
At a certain point it becomes impossible to personally defend said "property." What happens then?
At this point, I suppose it's time to start thinking about private defense agencies. The property owner must be able to call upon armed men to come assert his claim on the property.
At what point are we going to admit that this is starting to look a lot like the state that we originally decried?
But... there is a solution:
To understand this line of thinking, it's very important to get the difference between private property (ownership) and personal property (possession).
It's of course not ok to take your TV, your clothes, your house - as long as you use them. Taking them away from you while you utilize them is an attack on your personal freedoms, which can't be tolerated. But taking an abandoned house to live in there doesn't harm the owner personally. He shouldn't be able to kick you out to let it stay empty again.
Yes, it is like pure idea of communism, but reality differs to utopia.
People are not ready to use property rational.
In my city, several decades ago, government asked scientist: "how we could solve house problem for people?"
They give all data...
Data was analysed... And the optimal solution was found -- not to build more, not to repair more, just to reorganise personal property, because many houses were empty, they were bought as investments...
After this, that government never asked these scientists...
What about risk? What is the value of risk? Should people be rewarded for taking on risk when others are unwilling to do so?
Example: I own a rental property. We had people in it for a long time who, unfortunately, could barely afford it (though they certainly had a lot of junk including TVs larger than ours). Though rents all around our property went up, we kept ours the same. We accepted their late or incompletely rent payments, and we were happy when they could make them up a little at a time. We often got notices about the yard not being kept up, and later we found out from the neighbors how they were, well, terrible neighbors. They also trashed the place with junk over the years they were there.
A couple months ago, they almost burned the house down. $50k in damages, including a new roof.
Should we have kicked them out years ago and rented to others who would appreciate the value of the risk we took on to invest in that property, repair, and maintain it? What value can be given to the money earned to purchase the house in the first place and take on the risk of renting it to others?
Maybe my example isn't helpful because you're talking about an empty property. Well, right now, our property is empty. The repairs are finally done, and our property manager is in the process of looking for new tenants who will respect the house and the neighborhood. If a squatter were to live in it now, that would dramatically impact our ability to find a tenant who would appreciate living there. It may not harm me personally in a physical sense, but it would take away value from me as I'm still paying the mortgage. If people staying in that house without my consent prevented me from renting it out to someone else, is that okay?
We had much the same situation with the first home we ever owned, moving before it could be sold, the proceeds of which finally helped pay for a new roof, drilling a needed new water well (over $7,000), carpeting and flooring throughout our third home (the one we finally lost to the greedy tax and spend into economic oblivion state).
It took us several years before we could sell, and had to pay over a thousand dollars to renovate our old $25,000 home due to bad tenants, who even stole the circuit-protected kitchen electrical outlet I installed to remove this potential hazard while we lived in the home, replacing it with a dangerous unprotected outlet, which I paid to replace again before selling.
We had been homeless briefly before finding this home, living in a pickup truck camper and hotel rooms briefly with four children and another on the way, and have now been homeless half a year since losing our third and last home in the past 25 years, resulting in severe health issues as a direct result.
Anyone who thinks those who worked hard to afford and provide for whatever minimal (these days) protection owning a home can provide them (which is really a liability with upkeep and insurance costs, not forgetting confiscatory "property taxes" much less bad, destructive, thieving tenants, and is only an "asset" on accountant's ledgers in a worst-case scenario of being forced to liquidate all belongings to pay creditors, or the criminally greedy state and federal courts) isn't thinking this thing through clearly, logically or with sufficient insight into the far more serious problems facing our world, society, personal well-being and freedoms today.
Thanks for sharing your story. I'm sorry it sounds like such a difficult one. I hope @bacchist addresses these concepts when writing his future post about risk.
It has been difficult, but educational (we're never too old to learn).
For some reason I cannot reply directly to @pharesim's response below, but the supposed "solution" of taking a home simply because it isn't being lived in by the owner currently is just warmed over communist-style socialism, which has never proved workable economically (Russia and China are two major examples of the past century).
Say that a businessman, who worked hard to salt away a few shekels, decides to go on a business trip while paying others to look after his home. Should his return be delayed by unforeseen business difficulties, at which point would he be forced to find a new home and personal property to replace that taken over by squatters during his absence?
One month, one year, or immediately? Sorry, but I don't see the difference between what the anarchists are proposing and state confiscation of homes for unpaid (even unconstitutional) property taxes.
Private mortgages are not the problem, unless their interest rates are in the usurious range, based on voluntary contracts. Banks that claim to make such loans, but which actually only trade the borrowers promissory note (a claim against his future earnings) to investors while putting nothing of their own considerable assets at risk in the transaction -- like modern-day money changers -- but later use this document they no longer hold as a claim against the property or other collateral pledged against default in paying the so-called "loan," are part of the real social problems we should be addressing (fraud in the courts, banking institutions, and corporate businesses that profit from such fraud, as a result).
All this is addressed already imo. There wouldn't be tennants, and nobody would be homeless :) When you have a home, there's no way to get you out. And when you don't have one, you'll find (and probably need to renovate) one. If you want to sell, you either make a good price to find a buyer, or give it up. That's still your decision. Playing the markets while others want to utilize the good is a waste.
All those questions evolve around the idea of private property. You just shouldn't be able to own a house you don't use personally. It's part of the game right now, so no offense given ;-)
But in a free world, houses would belong to those living in them. And you wouldn't pay a mortgage.
Glad to hear no offense given. :)
Does that mean an authority would have to exist to prevent people from doing so or would this just be a culturally reinforced social norm (i.e no violence or coercion needed to enforce it)?
So is everything purchased with cash or are we imagining the abolishment of money as well? If so, I have trouble figuring out a mechanism for determining value within the chaos that is human existence. Scarcity appears to me to require a mechanism for distribution beyond whoever is willing to use violence more than the other guy. Economic freedom through voluntary exchange of value seems to be the best thing we have going so far for increasing human well-being in these situations.
What about those who can not afford to build a home themselves or purchase it directly with cash (or some other equivalent if we're talking about a gift-based economy or some similar setup)? Do they just... go homeless? I get how problematic slumlords can be, but I also think a landlord can provide a valuable service (again, by taking on risk which I believe has value -- I'd love your thoughts on that) to someone who couldn't otherwise afford a long term commitment to a single geography or the risks involved with home ownership.
Maybe I'm completely indoctrinated with capitalist thinking because of my pro-capitalist, Western upbringing... I'm open to that, but I'd still want to see more solutions for improving human well-being if I'm going to throw out private property (and, potentially, money with it).
You miss a huge key element here Luke. No one would pay a mortgage or rent without a government telling them they couldn't just build their own home on any unoccupied peice of land...except maybe in cities but even then some would move out to build free, leaving a huge volume of empty houses, and driving rental value down so low as to not be worth keeping rentals
It isn't the free market (whether it's called capitalism or laissez faire) that's the problem...it's when what should be a limited government serving its constituents interferes through coercion and fraud, to skew the results to the benefit of some special interests and the loss of those not so favored, that should be a focus of attention.
For instance, what are the justifications/ramifications of "the state" taking a share of every transaction in the form of sales tax in the transfer of purely digital "products" over the Internet, the bandwidth or use of which has already been paid for (including tax) by the seller and buyer?
Also the "funds" used for such transactions being usually purely digital as well, what gives "the state" (those claiming to act on behalf of everyone) a right to lay claim to such otherwise private property (including personal time/effort invested) without full and fair compensation for the confiscation?
If no authority existed, you wouldn't be able to keep steady control over (several) houses you don't live in. The social norm would be the definition of self defense, is someone moving into a house you don't personally use threatening you enough to exercise physical force over him? And of course there needs to be an agreement about the difference between abandoning and leaving for a while.
When you plan to move out of your awesome house, and someone else wants to live in there, you can of course ask for an exchange. Money is a good tool for that. And if he doesn't have the cash, you're free to make a deal with him, this involves third parties and mortgages.
No, voluntary exchange is great. But you wouldn't take a mortgage for a house you wouldn't use, because there would be no authority helping you to throw out potential squatters :P
The services a good landlord provides can probably, with minor modifications, be a business of their own.
but what if he WILL USE IT?
What if you haven't used the TV in weeks, can I come take it?
It's such a weird but exciting change of perspective! So cool that steemit has so many good articles on anarchism, even if you don't agree, at least you can understand it!
It is important, I think, to understand what one should or should not be an anarchist against. Being in anarchy against what is right in "the state" is just as wrong as being for anarchy when it is wrongly applied and misdirected.
For instance, we recently lost our home to property taxes we could not afford. I can tell you, after half a year of forced homelessness as a result (at the age of 65), along with my elderly wife (61) and 24 year old handicapped son, homes or private property are essential to life, peace, happiness and the pursuit thereof.
Yet neighbors think they have the "right" to vote other people's property as collateral for bonds, to be repaid yearly in the form of "property taxes," thus allowing the courts to rob and wrest homes from the economically disadvantaged made poor by other police-state actions, such as asset forfeiture (theft) without any evidence, proof or existence of any criminal wrong-doing whatever (other than by robbers we now call "the cops").
Meanwhile, ownership of property and tax exemption by legal fictions called corporations, which in turn use the lucrative economic base this affords them to avoid or barely pay minimal property or income taxes, while influencing politics in their favor, and sending profits out of local areas to corporate headquarters (which may be in other countries), thereby robbing the community/country of the velocity effect of money changing hands a sufficient number of times and remaining within a local economy long enough to sustain its buying power; these things should be seen as grounds for true anarchy against very real wrongs and evils, such as so-called "eminent domain" property seizures on behalf of corporate interests without adequately compensating the owners.
Ownership of property itself is not the problem, since you possess even the various parts of your physical body, and have every right to defend them against attack, loss or harm. In like manner, property being merely an extension of the use of those parts to create order out of chaos and greater value out of raw materials obtained by the sustained exercise and hard work of those parts, deserves equal protection from thieving neighbors as well as greedy politicians, common criminals, and actual (not feigned or faux) foreign or domestic enemies, at home or abroad.
The house you live in is personal property. Nobody should be able to throw you out of it.
it's not though....assuming you take a mortgage out to purchase said property, the person who gave you the money is the owner until the money is repaid...
There is also wear-and-tear that has to be accounted for.. But other than that, I totally agree.
Yes totally agree. But i think owners might not agree, as their argument would be, that the house would get damaged etc and loose value.
Maybe you can post a comment about this post i co-authored with a friend
https://steemit.com/food/@knozaki2015/britafilters-hacked-read-the-whole-hacking-story-steemit-exclusive
the bad Britafilter have been defended, i hope you find it interesting
That's just ridiculous to me. If I slap you, do you have the right to defend yourself "as if I was trying to kill you"? Of course not. Same goes from defending property. If my family is starving and someone steals the food I've worked for to feed them, then yes, it might actually be a matter of life or death. In other cases, not at all. Appropriate defensive force against an initiator of force (i.e. someone aggressing against you, someone who is being violent) is completely justifiable, when it's an appropriate amount of force. Ideally, we all use non-violent communication and no physical force is ever required.
You can say "property is theft," but until there's an alternative mechanism for determining value within the chaotic system that is human existence, I'll choose market forces over anything I've seen so far because economic freedom correlates with high levels of human well-being. Unless you're advocating we rewind the clock to the days of pre-agricultural society, property and ownership is what gives us modern society. I love open source software, and I do believe someday, maybe, we could have our needs met well enough to not have to put a price tag on everything. However, I think Steemit is an example of where market forces and the "price tag" still have great value compared to not having them. Conversations are much better here. Why is that? Because something that was previously difficult to value is now being valued by a pseudo-market force of a dollar-value vote.
It's a beautiful, wonderful thing.
I'll even upvote you for starting a good discussion, even though I disagree with your conclusion. :)
Thanks for pointing out your non-violent communication post. I look forward to watching the videos.
I will have to respond to your comments in the morning, but I appreciate the responses.
Actually if you initiate aggression by slapping me it may be the end of your life, for if you are willing to violate the non aggression principal in the first place how am I to know where you would stop escalating the violence you initiated?
With reason, logic, and evidence? Humans are emotional beings and they make emotional mistakes. If someone screws up and lets their negative emotions get the best of them, and you'd be willing to end their life because of it, that to me seems like a moral framework so rigid as to be worse than Statism's victimless crimes or some hyper-dogmatic, fundamentalist, violent worldview. Punishment based on harm done to the victim has to be rational. When it's not, we get the State or ISIS.
Worse than stateism victimless crimes? Seriously? Say you initiate aggression and slap me when I have not done anything that constitutes aggression towards you, and I proceed to hand you an ass whooping, how do I know you won't come back with a knife or a gun?
Now I'm not saying that I would always or automatically resort to lethal force. That would only happen in cases where I felt the threat of escalation by the aggressor was a real possibility, but under THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES I maintain that I am within my rights to assure that I am not the victim of further aggressions.
I enjoyed the videos. I like his approach.
I'm not so sure I can get around to answering all of your comments at this point, but I did read them all and you make some good points.
I have a hard time conceiving of a defense of property rights that is appropriate and proportionate. Most of what I've experienced has been agents of the state applying overwhelming force with the backing of a justice system that criminalizes any attempts at fighting back. I've been a part of eviction defense actions, for example, where we sat and/or chained ourselves to a home that was being illegally foreclosed on by the bank... U.S. Marshals showed up with military style weapons. Nobody resisted violently, but that didn't prevent people from being sent to the hospital. One friend of mine was lying in the street unconscious for several minutes before an ambulance showed up. All to protect the property of the bank, who owned it on paper and wouldn't allow the woman who lived in the house the chance to prevent it...
To me, this is blaming Voluntaryists for the State and clouding your reasoning with personal experiences. At the same time, as a business owner with some level of success, I also use my personal experiences to put a lot of trust in the market, private property, and rational economic actors.
Your criticism and concern is a similar to those ancappies have of ancommies, claiming their society without property rights will always lead to conflict and the rise of a State power to appropriate and redistribute wealth in what turns into centralized planning. I personally think both AnCom and AnCap views have merit, but AnCap seems more rational, IMO, with how human beings work to meet their own, wildly diverse ambitions through prices created by a market system in what would otherwise be overly chaotic or too strictly controlled via central planning. How can we know which works best? To me, we can do our best to measure human well-being and go from there. I see AnCaps as being inclusive. They are fine with people doing the AnCom thing. I don't see AnComs as allowing AnCaps the same freedom.
It would be easier to let AnCaps off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of capitalist societies that were not underwritten by state violence.... But you are correct that the forms of the arguments against the opposing sides of this debate often take a similar form.
It would be easier to let AnComs off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of communist societies that were not underwritten by state violence...
As you said, it goes both ways. I'm currently on the team with the lowest democide body count (IMO).
Funny thing is, there are quite a few interesting examples of anarchist communities of various forms (see wikipedia), but Statists argue they don't count because they aren't on a large enough scale. I think the Internet and decentralization has changed the game, however, because for the first time ever, networks can be more efficient than hierarchies. That's an amazing thing! What's even more interesting to note is how the origin of the Internet combines so many different world views. Statists argue government involvement created it. AnComs might site the importance of open-source and free software which runs it all. AnCaps could then point out how the commercialization of the Internet is what actually caused it to grow and solve the last mile problem into people's homes.
Moral of the story: we should probably all be a little less dogmatic as we increase our wisdom and experience. :)
@lukestokes most of the anarchist communities that you mention were closer to what leftist anarchists are advocating than capitalistic systems... Especially considering that AnCaps are a relatively new breed, largely emerging from the privileged classes (who are best positioned to benefit from the existing disparity in wealth/property).
Do you have siblings?
I have CONSTANT quarrels over ownership of stuff...why did you use MY BIKE? why did you eat MY BREAD? where is MY PAN?
We are 31 and 29 and living in a duplex so we intersect a lot, we are pretty mature and this shit is ongoing...
If this happens between sibling that love each other...what chance does the world has, man?
Violence to defend an inanimate object is archaic. Ownership does not even exist. Nice post.
But if someone steals my TV, I'm going to want to punch them in the face. Can i be saved?
I'm going to take the dam TV back...
Notice how I didn't say "My"
The TV doesn't exist either.
If you created it or exchanged the products of your labor for it it is your personal property, and anyone attempting to deprive you of it without your consent is stealing the portion of your life and exertion of your body that went into making it or the goods/services exchanged for the item, so yes personal property is real and one has a moral right to it and it's defense, otherwise we are all just slaves after the fact to anyone who comes along to deprive us of the possesions our labor has provided us.
Then I'd be out of a job... No tv, no work for me :/
What would all us actors, tv reporters and television/film industry people do?
So what's the solution to anything?
What if that object is your sustenance?
I really appreciate to read an article by a REAL anarchist,not this anarcho-capitalist oppressive bullshit that Steemit is infested with.I consider you my ally.I define myself currently as a post-scarcity anarchist. I have only just begun reading Murray Bookchin´s Post Scarcity Anarchism.It´s really great stuff,and something that I will promote here on Stemit in the future. We real Anarchist need to unite and support eachother,in the world,and on Steemit.
In an anarchist society I don't think there is any place for holding property you are not actually using yourself. Owning more property than your immediate needs for housing yourself and those things you have rightfully acquired through VOLUNTARY exchanges or directly through your labor, or land that you put work into for crops, or beautification ect. is merely maintaining the means to extort others for a portion of the product of their labor, giving them no lasting return. That said, if you build a home and sell it that is perfectly reasonable, if we find ourselves in an anarchist society and you work out terms to sell rental properties to recover value on what you have paid in..fine. But with anarchy will also come the fall of the fiat currency banking system, so anything "owed" to the banks on money they got from thin air will be void, and the stake you have in any property will be only the portion you have already paid off on mortgages... As for the rest of the value of the house, that is no more rightfully yours than it is anyone elses so recoup your actual investment and move on. The other side of this is yes every person has the right to control the property on which his house, and possessions sit, along with any land they put their labor into improving, working, and maintaining, so long as they or their benefactors continue the work that gave them the right to claim it to begin with,so long as it is not abandoned, or the work does not cease for an excessive period of time, .....and the right to defend it from agressors, for any theft of the product of one's labors is the theft of their time and bodily efforts is slavery.
If I make a tool from scratch, I own that tool until I willingly transfer the title.
I was refering to land "ownership" not possessions acquired by ones own labor or in voluntary exchanges for the products of ones labor.
I think the only forms of legitimate property are that can be claimed peacefully. My bitcoin is my bitcoin, I dont use force to claim it, i just have a password to claim it. The same can be said about other digital property. Physical property is more tricky, but it can be solved non-violently too.
what would you do if someone came in and shit on the floor of your house though
lmao... this is somewhat close to what I'm questioning as well... I would value my floor and the lovely odor I had in my house before, said person took a dump
i think we just broke anarchy
forrealz... I really would like an explanation for your question over mine... "What would you do if someone came in and shit on the floor of your house?"
Well technically we wouldn't have houses right? I don't know any alternative to how we do it I guess.
It's a battle of intentions, Mal intent and good intent. Would you respond to someones ill intent towards you?
Is this a problem you guys have a lot?
The only times this ever happened to me, I ended up feeding and housing them... The joys of being a dog lover.
Ok, this is a little tripped out of a reading.. I really do need to research this huge ass anarchist movement which is very heavy on steem.
I value my possession but it seems that your saying... we shouldn't possess or take pride in our possessions? If someone is trying to take away what something I value... what am I to do?
I agree with the general sentiment here, and my assumption is that he is talking about private property as opposed to personal. Yeah private property sucks, there is a lot of it claimed by people in excess, but ill be damned if I let anyone take something off my person while they claim i have no right to own something.
Possessions are not really the issue... Really, petty theft is a personal issue. It is a societal issue when the means of production are privately owned.
Your post wasn't about "the means of production," though you tried to lump that in there at the end. I own myself, I own myself in the past, and in the future. The things I create with my own effort and stores of value belong to me. How I choose to defend them (or my neighbor, or myself, or anything, for that matter) is up to the court of opinion of the community I live in. If my neighbors are having an argument and I bust in and punch the person yelling the loudest in an effort to "defend" the other person, I'll still have to answer for my actions, especially if the community values the non-aggression principle. Same thing goes for how I defend myself in the past (i.e., the result of my labor, my property).
I think a key concept you're missing is that ancaps see "violence" as the initiation of force. If someone comes into my home and tries to steal from me, they have initiated force against me. It's up to me to respond with appropriate force in a manner which is acceptable within my community. If I use an amount of force which is not appropriate to the force initiated against me, the community will respond accordingly. I don't have to invent various types of property (personal or private) for this all to make sense.
The means of production is a separate concept, in my understanding. If workers want to get together and own a factory, awesome! More power to them! What happens more often than not, once someone attempts to run their own business, they realize how damn hard it is and what the real value of risk is. Then "labor," with it's predictable paycheck, starts to sound really nice. I've worked for others, and I've also built my own business from nothing for the last 9 years. I know what's involved and I know my "workers" as you'd call them ("team members" as I and they see themselves) prefer not owning the company directly because they don't want the risk my business partner and I take on.
I'm working on a blog post titled "Muh risk!"
I think you will like it. :)
NICE! Looking forward to it. :)
same here, looking forward to it as well
I agree... thank you for going into detail and expressing how I feel.. I had no idea how to respond lol
Are you suggesting I am arguing with him cuz i wasn't. I wanted to know the solution to a problem I seen.
@bacchist is a smart dude and I know I have a lot to learn from him when it comes to the terrible things going on throughout the world regard exploiting poor, working class people through coercive, non-natural monopolist practices (usually involving government).
That said, not everything is "muh means of production" and trying to argue against the clear increase in well-being economic freedom and voluntary exchange of property brings is an uphill, losing battle, IMO.
@mrwang: sorry, my tone is probably too combative in this discussion. I've spent way too long in really ridiculous ideological debates on Facebook about this stuff and it's usually, unfortunately, an argument. That has warped my communication style on this topic a bit. I love how people here are, for the most part, just trying to learn. :)
No worries... the knowledge is what I seek.. however I get it, we shall see. I also commented on a post of @derekareith and questioned him about the anarchist idea and movement. I see it has a huge following and now as an active contributor and filmmaker in this community... I am looking to expand, learn and share with others. My own contribution to this community is only valuable if I learn what majority is talking about.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@christowner/the-non-exploitative-employer-employee-relationships
Time does it everyday, and we just take it. Lol but really, I'm not sure what he's proposing. Is it an ideology or do we just not really own anything I wonder
I agree with you that 'self-ownership' isn't a helpful term. Ambiguous, confusing.
I disagree that there's anything being divorced from it's proper context here though. When you say 'defend personal integrity' the only thing that can intelligibly mean to me is defend my property, in this case my body.
Why is it okay for a doctor to cut me open but not okay for a stranger to spit in my face?
It's because I've consented to the doctor using my property in that way, I have not consented to the stranger doing so.
Yes. And we differentiate 'attack' from other forms of interaction, in part, by referring to property rights and judging whether they're being violated or not.
Of course. Your right to defend him is a specific example of your right to use force to prevent any rights violation from occurring. In this case the violation of your brother's property rights in his body.
It is necessary. The concept of property rights is necessary in order to determine whether the use of force is justified. Consider: Your brother's arm is amputated and he's not expressed a clear wish to keep it (perhaps he fell unconscious) - his ownership status over his arm is now uncertain. This does have an affect on whether it would be justified to use force to prevent someone else using that arm without your brothers consent - now it's much less clear whether that use of force would be justified, because (I claim) the ownership claim of your brother is much less clear.
We disagree.