When are you going to get over this silly “interpretation” nonsense. Barack Obama isn’t really, or a murderer, or a theif, or a liar. That’s just the way you intepret it. Same goes for Hitler. In fact, the state doesn’t really violate any rights, that’s just your intepretation.
One can either oppose the state in principle, and reject coercion (implying property rights). Or one can refuse to reject property rights, in which case one condones violence and cannot oppose the state. It’s simple stuff.
Property implies exclusivity. If it is mine I can choose to reject whomever I please. Otherwise the property isn’t mine. Once again, this is simply.
Ok, but the moment he aggresses against me property he rejects property rights. If he doesn’t do that he accepts property rights (at least in theory). Once again, the former is an anarchist who supports private property and the latter is a statist. No intepretation necessary.
Private property is inherently not egalitarian.
Yes, it is. It shows how something can be rejected by a libertarian even if it fits within the context of voluntaryism.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was speaking in general terms.
People holding opposing facts does not necessarily mean they have to violently conflict. They can always chooose to separate or live and let live.
Personal preferances for how to use and organize property in a voluntary way are irrelevant.
I haven’t watered down my ideology. I’m just not a dogmatist and realize that voluntaryism has pluralistic implications. I’m in fact being consistant with my ideology in recognizing this.
Anyone CAN fit into anarchism, their personal preferances are irrelevant so long as they embrace free association as a norm. We’re dealing with a society-level thing here, not some country club. An anarchistic society is not going to be a country club where we all have the same preferances. So yes, anarchism does accomodate a wide array of people by default. Anyone can be an anarchist, the requirements for becoming one are not very much.
Sorry, that is an unfai mocking of my position, a non-sequitor. I never implied that everything is arbitrary in this way. When I talk about things being preferential, this is in the context of voluntary interaction.
Sorry, it really isn’t that simple, because you’re basing this on a dogmatic understanding of property. It does not necessarily follow from one’s rejection of your interpretation of property that one condones violence.
I already clarified this to you pages back: property rights does not inherently imply exclusivity, it implies decision-making power over the property, and this includes the decision-making power to be inclusive. The only sense in which property rights inherently implies exclusivity is a matter of scarcity. Yes, property rights gives one the right to be exclusive, but it does not follow that by the very nature of having the property right, one must be exclusive (at least to the degree you prefer). Exclusivity/inclusivity are personal preferances with regaurd to how to treat one’s own property.
I’m sorry, but there is no absolute correlation in the way you are argueing. It does not necessarily follow that because one rejects property rights ideologically, one is a statist. It does not necessarily follow that because one ideologically supports property rights, one is an anarchist. It does not necessarily follow that because one ideologically rejects property rights, one will act violent. It does not necesarily follow that because one ideologically supports property rights, one will never violate them.
You obcess on property too much.
This is not true. Private property can be used for egalitarian purposes. In fact, I’d go further: egalitarian purposes cannot be achieved without private property.
Except there is nothing contradictary to libertarianism about voluntarily forming a temple of the purple unicorn. This whole thing is dumb and irrelevant.
Even then, people with different views on property are perfectly capable of pursueing such views separately without conflicting. It is not inherent that one has to force their way on the other.
These opposing views, in the context of anarchism, reduce to personal preferances.
You need to read more Hoppe. Conflicts arise because resources are scarce. Sure they can decide to compromise. But why would someone who doesn’t believe in private property, compromise when someone else comes along and claims exclusivity over a resource they were using?
I don’t think you’re being sincere, because I think you know your stance while hopeful, is not very realistic.
That’s not what I wrote. You are doing it again. I’m not talking about preferences. We have no dispute on that. Our dispute is that you continue to discuss preferences like we do have a conflict when you know full well our conflict is over facts.
This evasiveness is insincere.
Are you saying that facts are pluralistic?
Again, you keep bringing up preferences which is a red herring. I am not debating preferences with you, although you seem to turn every argument, into some conflict of recognizing preferences, whether it is or not.
We’re discussing facts. Not preferences.
I gave you an example. You ignored it. Why? If you want to have a credible argument, you will be able to respond to my example. How do we address two groups, in conflict because they each hold a different set of facts as true?
It’s just a convenient term making a distinction between anarchists who are socialist and anarchists who are not socialist.
And since when doesn’t anarchistic philosophy do this to begin with? It already does recognize individual rights. The problems we’re dealing with are in fact individuals who are deviating from the anarchistic philosophy and statists who have hijacked the anarchist movement, not those who are actually consistant with social anarchist philosophy (who are 100% allies).
I’d also posit that if one’s ideology involves the state selling itself to some single man who goes on to function as the state himself, or some uniformly binding “social convenants” that makes it compulsory to keep out “unwanteds”, they’re really not anarchists at all.
Good luck finding the unanimous consent in favor of bigotry necessary to pull such a thing off in a consistantly voluntary way.
Well, it becomes a problem if some people view private property as legitimate, and others don’t. Don’t you think that conflicts would occur?
Everyone that is against private property wouldn’t see my privately owned lands as “mine” at all. This would be a problem. Anarcho-capitalists/Libertarians consider private property as a right and as included under the Non-Aggression Principle, whilst Anarcho-Communists don’t. To them the taking of private property isn’t a violation at all.
I’ve read plenty of him, his book is right here on my shelf. However, I don’t agree with those who regaurd him as the new libertarian messiah and use his work in the attempt to support a more conservative interpretation of libertarianism. I think where he deviates from Rothbard, Rothbard was right and he is wrong.
I’m not denying scarcity. Scarcity is irrelevant to my point, which is about ideological disagreement.
If someone tried to come along and claim ownership over a resource that I’m using and have actively labored upon, it is actually they who would likely be violating my property rights, for they would be a theif.
I’m being perfectly sincere, and you don’t even understand my “stance”.
I’m not evading anything - I’m talking to a recording machine who doesn’t understand my points.
No, I’m saying that the outcome of voluntary interaction, given the vast diversity between people’s preferances, is pluralistic.
You’re not argueing against my points or my position, you’re bringing up your own questions to get to a point you want to make in order to “win”.
Would anarcho-communists recognize your claim to that resource you are using and have actively laboured upon?
If you are not evading, why won’t you respond to my example?
I’m not interested in winning. I’m interested in the truth. You should be too. But then you would rather make comments about Hoppeans or preferences, rather than address the issue at hand. The uncommon definitions of property and rights between the different anarcho-tribes.
What I’m wondering is if some anarcho-capitalists would. Clearly, some wouldn’t, and would side with the fuedal landlord in the scenario. I have a sneaking suspicion that in such a scenario, the anarcho-communists would overwhelmingly support my property rights against the fraudulent claim of the feudal landlord, and some of the anarcho-capitalists would regaurd me as the property rights violator if I side with the peasants against the fuedal landlord, favoring the legal title of the land owner over the actual production and use of the peasants.
Hence my point that in some context or scenarios, the anarcho-communists would be recognizing property rights by default, and some of those who put themselves foreward as bastions of property rights would in fact disregaurd them in favor of legal privilege. Strange how in such a scenario the anarcho-communists would likely be perfectly consistant with Rothbard, isn’t it? In short, it’s not always the commoners who are the theives, and when the theives happen to be those at the top of a heirarchy, socialistic leaning people suddenly support property rights.
I still don’t know why no economists or philosophers have’nt taken all of Murray’s works, studied them, analyzed them, and then turn their findings into a new and coherent political philosophy. It would an excellent tool for AnCaps and Libertarianism in general. But thats opinion. What’s yours?