John James : But most minarchists and people who allegedly advocate “free markets” simply don’t really see how a truly free society would function without that entity there inflicting its coercion and violence. They will tell you “to have freedom you need to have your rights protected, so you need government.” As non sequitur as this might be, that’s the common line of thinking.
The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined.
Note here that I’m not arguing for the existence of state. I’m going to argue that simply saying man has the right to own property and to engage in voluntary exchange isn’t a sufficiently explanatory standard such that all men implicitly know what the rules are that define whether or not a behavior is coercion, theft, or any of the other traditional crimes which a use of force combats, and thus is deemed legitimate.
I can construct thought experiments that demonstrate the edge conditions for any of the definitions. However, the point of the exercise, is to realize that rights are a socially constructed phenomena.
There are metaphysical facts of reality which explain the reasons for the social concept of rights and property. However, the devil is in the details about how a social group comes up with norms and laws about what constitutes ownership and what constitutes property.
In the article you referenced, there is a particular phrase which is glossed over as if it’s implicitly understood and defined :
“This difference is the principle of force and power – the principle of government. It is our very core belief as anarchists that force and power are wrong; that any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world.”
Force and power are implicitly evil or never acceptable means to any end in this context. But as soon as presented with an idea of self-defense, in the case of bodily harm, we immediately say, well that’s a legitimate use of force. While I agree, it’s also force.
Property ownership in particular of land, is not just a right of use, but a denial of legitimate use by others. The only possible means by which to enforce such a claim, is through force. Now if one defines an illegitimate use of property as a use of force, you end up with an awareness/knowledge issue. The issue is in social communication and definition of the boundary conditions that create an owner/property relationship, and in particular a means for establishing when it occurs and how to be aware of it.
The devil is in the details. So, when a purely ideological anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist (like I want to be, but am struggling with) says things like “any involuntary subjection is always comparable to the end of the world.” I’m stuck trying to understand how and who will interpret and arbitrate the inevitable confusions and conflicts that must arise because it’s just not that simple to see the property->owner relationship.
I can see your connection with your body. I can’t see or interact with you except through it. But anything not attached to a human body, becomes slightly more difficult to be as sure and clear about. Common Law, Natural Property Rights, which seem to me to be very closely related are a specific well-ordered solution to the property problem. I can accept that private dispute resolution organizations can in fact arise to provide services to address these eventualities, but acting like states aren’t one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous.
The only issue I have with states, is the implicit non-compete clause they claim exists.* Someone’s going to stake a claim to be a legitimate user of force. If you want stolen property back, you either suck it up like Gandhi (not a bad idea necessarily), or you or an agent operating on your behalf has to go and get it back.
*This isn’t actually my only issue with states, but any other complaint I have can be traced back to this original issue. I do agree that it’s actions are harmful, but not being able to seek redress or abolish or break free form it’s edicts and punishments, traces back to the monopoly on force, not to the use of force itself within a social context.