Shit, I can’t directly respond!
searches for passage to copy/paste on quasi-related subject
What exactly is your point?
Im bored and it is off point. Relating to earlier discussion about royal and feudal exploitation of the commoners.
Homesteading is simply the means of acquring ownership. Preservation is a choice made by an individual. That certain production processes yield higher profits results from the preferences of individual consumers alone, on a free market.
Great. So if one individual decides that chopping down the Amazon rainforest is more pofitable than regrowing a forest he already chopped down, he’s free to do so? Of course it won’t benefit anyone when all of the forests have been cut down, but it will make sense in the short term for an individual acting in his own self-interest. Ironically, it’s propertarian logic that will lead to the greatest “Tragedy of the Commons” of them all!
How does any of this prove any truth in defining “capitalism” one way or another? The answer is: it doesn’t. All you’re doing above is appealing to the majority.
Can you please explain what you mean by “historical dichotomy”? Regardless of how you define it, though, why is the existence of a “historical dichotomy” necessarily a bad thing? Furthermore, how does any of this invalidate my original point?
Now I’m going to go out on a limb and ask this: why must self-styled anti-capitalists not be received with knee-jerk reactions, as you seem to imply?
I think it’s mockery when you do it because, as far as I can tell, you don’t really believe what you’re saying. That is, I think you’re being dishonest when you do it. Now why would you be dishonest like this? The only reason I can think of is to simply (try to) get me to back down.
Okay, so what? How does this invalidate my point?
Quite frankly, I think it says that we’re suspicious of self-styled anti-capitalists’ motives. Whether you think that suspicion is justified or not is your problem, isn’t it?
If you really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism, yet you refuse to consider any anarcho-capitalist’s reasoning on this issue as valid, what does that say about your stated intention?
I hate to sound like Reagan, of all people, but see, there you go again. You claim to be asking for how anarcho-capitalists see their movement as relating to what you call “anarchism”, yet when one of them (such as myself) provides an answer, you apparently feel the need to argue against it. If you were really just curious about what anarcho-capitalists think in this regard, wouldn’t you simply thank the anarcho-capitalist for his input and move on? What am I missing here? It’s statements like your paragraph above that indicate to me that your real goal is to protect the “sanctity” of what you call “anarchism” against the “contamination” of anarcho-capitalism.
Reading between the lines, it seems to me that you’re again implying that “anarcho-capitalism” is not “anarchist”, therefore the “anarcho-” part of the label should be dropped, at the very least. Once again, it’s all aesthetics.
“How does any of this prove any truth in defining “capitalism” one way or another? The answer is: it doesn’t. All you’re doing above is appealing to the majority…Can you please explain what you mean by “historical dichotomy”? Regardless of how you define it, though, why is the existence of a “historical dichotomy” necessarily a bad thing? Furthermore, how does any of this invalidate my original point?”
Have you missed the thousands of times I’ve given up my definition? Also, as I’d like to point out, you’re not wrong. Definitions come about by the way the majority uses them. Language, as a device that needs to be interpreted, is most functional when a majority of people are vaguely on the same page as one another. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have your own definition of words, it just means you should probably expect difficulty discussing. None of this invalidates your point. It just goes to show you’re being ridiculous.
Why is a historical dichotomy bad?
“(I said):it creates an historical dichotomy between capitalism as voluntary trade and capitalism as self-styled anti-authoritarian socialists meant it (which means one would have to figure out what they mean anyway).”
Your definition is fine, but to analyze the Anarchist movement we would still have to draw lines between this and that group. Are you wrong? No. You’re just ineffective at communicating.
“Now I’m going to go out on a limb and ask this: why must self-styled anti-capitalists not be received with knee-jerk reactions, as you seem to imply?”
Well, if you’re interested in actually understanding someone, then you probably shouldn’t have a knee jerk reaction to their ideas. You should hear them out. I came here hoping to learn something. While I have learned a bit about anarcho-capitalism, for the most part I have only discovered every stereotype about ancaps that I’ve heard to be completely true.
“I think it’s mockery when you do it because, as far as I can tell, you don’t really believe what you’re saying. That is, I think you’re being dishonest when you do it. Now why would you be dishonest like this? The only reason I can think of is to simply (try to) get me to back down.”
Well, you have no way of ever knowing what my definitions for words are, so you can’t really ever know that with certainty. The reason I did it is to show you how frustrating it is to use the argument you’ve been using, especially after I have said multiple times that I will agree to use capitalism as it is described here. I haven’t been saying you’re quantifiable, undoubtedly wrong. I’ve been saying the way you define capitalism is contrary to other Anarchists. And I’ve asked why. And I’ve gotten answers. I’ve learned even from that discussion.
If we want to talk about using the arbitrary nature of language disengenously, then let’s be real. After a widely accepted and used definition of capitalism has developed anarcho-capitalists invent a new one that make it look like anyone who opposes capitalism must be a freedom hating idiot. And who’s being dishonest?
“Quite frankly, I think it says that we’re suspicious of self-styled anti-capitalists’ motives. Whether you think that suspicion is justified or not is your problem, isn’t it?”
I couldn’t actually care less. It says more about you than it does about me.
“If you really want to hear out anarcho-capitalists on how they think their movement relates to anarchism, yet you refuse to consider any anarcho-capitalist’s reasoning on this issue as valid, what does that say about your stated intention?”
In all honesty I came here looking for discussion. When I pointed out problems I had with arguments or definitions I got no response other than essentially, “well, you’re wrong and we’re right,” with no further explanation. I accept that you have a different definition of capitalism, as far as why, no one has answered beyond asserting how right they are and how much of a Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Emotion Feminist/everything bad an impure in the world I am.
“If you were really just curious about what anarcho-capitalists think in this regard, wouldn’t you simply thank the anarcho-capitalist for his input and move on?”
I would look for clarification for things I don’t understand, which is all I have done. When folks say, “socialism requires a state,” that’s obviously not a generally agreeable statement to the larger anarchist movement. So I ask them what they mean and explain why I am having trouble with that answer.
“Once again, it’s all aesthetics.”
I’m not contesting that. I wanted to see if there was a relationship between ancap-ism and the broader movement that wasn’t antagonistic. Apparently there’s not. I only wonder why ancaps have created rhetoric that divirges so much from their namesake, but it seems pretty obvious at this point.
How am I being “ridiculous”, exactly? I haven’t even insisted on a particular definition for “capitalism” at all. For some odd reason, you keep thinking I’ve been somehow arguing in favor of defining capitalism as “voluntary trade” rather than some other way. Again, I haven’t. Why do you keep thinking that?
Does a majority of people have to start using a certain definition for a certain word in order for you (or anyone else) to understand it?
Apparently you understand me pretty well, so how exactly am I ineffective at communicating? Regardless, I already accepted your point that defining “capitalism” simply as “voluntary trade” would seemingly erase most distinctions between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists - except that the two groups have different property theories. IIRC, you didn’t accept that for some reason (probably aesthetic).
I agree with you, actually, about not having a knee-jerk reaction to someone if you’re interested in actually understanding him. I asked that question just to better see where you were coming from. But it can be hard to want to understand someone when it seems like he comes in and starts attacking, however subtly, everyone else in the forum. On the other hand, I honestly don’t condone knee-jerk responses to anyone who’s new in a forum, no matter what his beliefs are.
That’s true, of course. And I understand that I make many assumptions about your (and others’) definitions for words. When they point out that one or more of my assumptions are wrong, I gladly stand corrected.
On the other hand, I did write “as far as I can tell”. That leaves open the possibility that I’m wrong about what you meant.
I know you made that agreement. But you turned right around and claimed that that definition led to an apparent contradiction, namely that anti-capitalists would then be capitalists. I’ve tried many times to show you how that’s not actually a contradiction, and every time I’ve done this, you’ve acted like we’re in some kind of pissing contest and have tried to get “one up” on me because you can’t stand the aesthetic notion that one of your beloved anti-capitalists could be called a “capitalist” under a certain definition thereof. That’s why I accuse you of trying to somehow get me to back down.
It’s things like this which betray your stated understanding that definitions are arbitrary. If you honestly understood that, you wouldn’t call anarcho-capitalists “dishonest” because of the definition of “capitalism” that they typically use. Or maybe we even have different definitions for “dishonest” - I’m not sure.
Again with the pissing contest. “I know you are, but what am I???” But fine, I’ll bite. So do tell - how does it say more about me than it does about you?
For the nth time, the problems you pointed out with definitions were not logical problems with them - they were aesthetic problems that you had with them. That is, the definitions anarcho-capitalists use run contrary to your aesthetics. Now that’s all fine, but it has nothing to do with logic. So I certainly believe that I haven’t simply said “you’re wrong and we’re right”. I feel like I’ve been trying to do much more than that.
When did you ask why anyone defines “capitalism” as “voluntary trade”? I don’t recall you ever doing that, but I could be wrong.
Here’s an example. You asked for clarification on the apparent contradiction that, if one defines “capitalism” as “voluntary trade”, then self-styled anti-capitalists would be capitalists. So I decided to try to help you. I did that by pointing out that it’s not a contradiction at all. What have I gotten in return? Nothing but emotional pushback, it seems. Apparently my help has been too emotionally painful for you to accept. I’m sorry about that.
I’m glad you’re finally not contesting that it’s all aesthetics on your part. I only wish you could see that aesthetics have nothing whatsoever to do with logic. While I’ve tried to show you how this is the case, there’s only so much I can do. Hell, I even explained how anarcho-capitalism follows from the classical liberal tradition, and you claimed (as far as I can tell) that therefore anarcho-capitalists are actually statists in disguise!
You’re ineffective at communicating in that you cannot perceive what others mean when they use certain words. Or else you are just making it needlessly difficult for them.
“Regardless, I already accepted your point that defining “capitalism” simply as “voluntary trade” would seemingly erase most distinctions between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists - except that the two groups have different property theories. IIRC, you didn’t accept that for some reason (probably aesthetic).”
Except that I DID. Multiple times. Regardless of how you define capitalism, I said a billion and five times that I’ll take the definition offered. Now what? Then the answer I got was, “well, we don’t really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist.” Now I’m wondering why anarcho-capitalists continue to label themselves as anarchists when they have little to no relationship with any other anarchist philosophy, and why they have such a radically different definition of capitalism than everyone else.
“But you turned right around and claimed that that definition led to an apparent contradiction, namely that anti-capitalists would then be capitalists.”
First of all, my definition of contradiction could be radically different from yours such that I have been logically and infallibly correct this whole time, if we want to follow your arguments about language being arbitrary. I can say X leads to a contradiction and not be wrong as long as my definition of contradiction is not the one commonly held by you (and most people). But beyond that, I’ve raised concerns about why that accepting that definition is confusing and that even though language is arbitrary it still has real life consequences. Monarchists used to use the word “democracy” in a way that was synonymous with social and political chaos and disorder. So when they said things like, “democrats are trying to bring society into disorder,” they weren’t logically wrong. They were however misrepresenting what democrats thought, and they were affecting how their audience viewed self-styled democrats. That kind of misrepresentation is my number one concern.
“So do tell - how does it say more about me than it does about you?”
It says your suspicious. It doesn’t say anything about me other than you are suspicious of me.
“the problems you pointed out with definitions were not logical problems with them - they were aesthetic problems that you had with them.”
And for the millionth time those aesthetic concerns of mine still have consequences! Does that definition not lead to misrepresentation? Is misrepresentation not a bad thing when it comes to honest, civil discourse?
“Hell, I even explained how anarcho-capitalism follows from the classical liberal tradition, and you claimed (as far as I can tell) that therefore anarcho-capitalists are actually statists in disguise!”
I have not called anyone here a statist. What I’ve said is that classical liberals we’re statists and developed in opposition to anarchists. Doesn’t it seem reasonable then to call yourself a radical liberal or anti-state liberal?
“I only wish you could see that aesthetics have nothing whatsoever to do with logic.”
I only wish you could see that logic has so very little to do with real life. Throughout most of modern history we see people conquering others, the conquerors always with logic and reason on their side, colonizing the irrational for their own good.
FYI, Birthday Pony, we know you’re rolling your eyes at us here. Please know that you will not be banned by virtue of you “getting through” to anyone. Despite what people have told you, that’s not how we operate. Keep things civil and respectful, and we welcome your challenges and questions.
Ah, so that’s the explanation. So sorry. I guess we all can’t be so lucky.
Can you prove that literally everyone else has a radically different definition of “capitalism” than anarcho-capitalists? Otherwise, if you didn’t mean “everyone else” literally, why are you being so sloppy with your words (to put it bluntly) in a debate?
I’m sorry, but I find it darkly hilarious that you’d say the only further answer you got was “Well, we don’t really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist.” My understanding (however flawed it may be) is that “the broader anarchist movement” also derived from the classical liberal tradition. At the very least, therefore, anarcho-capitalism and “the broader anarchist movement” share a common origin. If I’m wrong here, please point it out.
Anarcho-capitalists use “anarcho-” because they oppose the state. It’s that simple. Why you guys are trying to claim and hold a monopoly on the word “anarchist” is beyond me (aside from aesthetic reasons).
That’s certainly possible, and I wouldn’t argue against it. But two things: 1) I still don’t think you actually understand (or are willing to admit to) the fact that language is arbitrary, and 2) even if you did, I’d consider it dishonest for you to not stipulate your definition of “contradiction” if you thought it would be radically different from mine. Keep in mind that, every time I’ve come to suspect you of using a different definition for a word from my own, I’ve explicitly asked you what your definition for that word is.
To be clear, you can say “X leads to a contradiction” and not be logically invalid. It wouldn’t have the same meaning as when I say “X leads to a contradiction.”
I’d say they were actually using “disorder” in a way that was synonymous with “the establishment of democracy”. Of course, they expected that their audiences would still be defining “disorder” as something like “chaos, death, and destruction”, which would lead them to associate democrats with those things. So the question now is, where do you see anarcho-capitalists as literally trying to deceive people?
The not-so-hidden implication in your statement, if I may be so bold, is that I shouldn’t be suspicious (of you), and that being suspicious (of you) is therefore a bad thing. Do I have it right? If so, maybe you’d like to explain yourself further. I, for one, see nothing wrong or bad with being suspicious, either in general or of you specifically.
Let me refer to the example above about monarchists vs. democrats. The monarchists who implicitly re-defined “disorder” as “the establishment of democracy” were therefore equivocating over the definition of the word “disorder” when they expected their audiences to hold to the more common definition of “disorder”. Equivocation, of course, is a logical fallacy. So if you’re talking about misrepresentation, you’re talking about equivocation, and therefore you’re talking about a logical fallacy - which of course has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with aesthetics. Telling us, in effect, to stop using the term “anarcho-capitalist” because you don’t like associating the word “anarchism” with the word “capitalism” has nothing to do with misrepresentation, as far as I can tell. So which is it? Are you talking about misrepresentation, and therefore logic, or are you talking about aesthetics?
Translation: doesn’t it seem reasonable then to stop calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist?
Again, didn’t “the broader anarchist movement” develop from the classical liberal movement? Or am I mistaken? But regardless, why must any of us care whether we’re using a label in exactly the same way as those who originally used it? Do you really expect to change anyone’s behavior around here?
More pissing-contest tit-for-tat, I see. To directly address your point, though, it seems to me that you’re basically saying “Screw logic!” If so, I applaud your candor. But in that case, the debate is over, by your forefeit.
“Can you prove that literally everyone else has a radically different definition of “capitalism” than anarcho-capitalists? Otherwise, if you didn’t mean “everyone else” literally, why are you being so sloppy with your words (to put it bluntly) in a debate?”
-
I meant other anarchists.
-
No, I can’t ask every single one of them individually. Still, I have a feeling you know what question I was asking.
“I’m sorry, but I find it darkly hilarious that you’d say the only further answer you got was “Well, we don’t really have much in common with anyone else that calls themselves an Anarchist.” My understanding (however flawed it may be) is that “the broader anarchist movement” also derived from the classical liberal tradition. At the very least, therefore, anarcho-capitalism and “the broader anarchist movement” share a common origin. If I’m wrong here, please point it out.”
The broader anarchist movement developed at the same time as liberals. With folks who didn’t like liberals and liberals who didn’t like them. Different circles.
“So the question now is, where do you see anarcho-capitalists as literally trying to deceive people?”
I do not know the intent of the following instances, but there’s a few just on this thread that are misinformed or disingenuous to the point of misrepresentation to anyone unfamiliar with the self-styled anti-capitalsts I am citing:
“The best way I have seen it defined was by Hans Herman Hoppe where the system of capitalism is the respect for and upholding of private property while socialism is marked by systemic transgressions against private property.”
“Socialists don’t accept voluntary trade.”
“You can’t change nature honey. Get over it.” (I just found this a bit paternalistic and degrading. Thought I’d throw it in anyway.)
“The problem is that Socialism does not allow for voluntary involvement.”
That is just from page 1.
“The not-so-hidden implication in your statement, if I may be so bold, is that I shouldn’t be suspicious (of you), and that being suspicious (of you) is therefore a bad thing. Do I have it right? If so, maybe you’d like to explain yourself further. I, for one, see nothing wrong or bad with being suspicious, either in general or of you specifically.”
No. The implication was exactly what it started as. It says something about you, not me. I’m not making a value judgement on it.
“Let me refer to the example above about monarchists vs. democrats. The monarchists who implicitly re-defined “disorder” as “the establishment of democracy” were therefore equivocating over the definition of the word “disorder” when they expected their audiences to hold to the more common definition of “disorder”. Equivocation, of course, is a logical fallacy. So if you’re talking about misrepresentation, you’re talking about equivocation, and therefore you’re talking about a logical fallacy - which of course has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with aesthetics. Telling us, in effect, to stop using the term “anarcho-capitalist” because you don’t like associating the word “anarchism” with the word “capitalism” has nothing to do with misrepresentation, as far as I can tell. So which is it? Are you talking about misrepresentation, and therefore logic, or are you talking about aesthetics?”
I haven’t actually said that folks here should call themselves anything. All of my challenges have still been digging, asking more, or just challenging a definition. It doesn’t keep me up at night knowing people who disagree with me call themselves Anarchists. All I wonder is why? I just want info. Now, what you’ve just said seems to negate your entire point about language being arbitrary. In one instance there’s equivocation and in another language has no root in what it represents. Let’s say I am talking about the equivocation of “capitalism” with “voluntary trade”. What would you have to say to that? Keep in mind, however, I don’t understand how you’re reconciling your past statements with what you’re saying now. Isn’t every instance we’ve discussed equivocation?
“Translation: doesn’t it seem reasonable then to stop calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist?”
Doesn’t it? Now where I go from here isn’t to just say, “okay then, stop. you’re wrong.” It’s obvious to me that people do call themselves anarcho-capitalists. My question would be why?
“But regardless, why must any of us care whether we’re using a label in exactly the same way as those who originally used it?”
I don’t think anyone does that. I have an understanding of where other anarchists come from. I don’t have an understanding of anarcho-capitalism. That’s why I am only asking you.
So, why do you use the term anarcho-capitalist (if you do)?
“FYI, Birthday Pony, we know you’re rolling your eyes at us here. Please know that you will not be banned by virtue of you “getting through” to anyone. Despite what people have told you, that’s not how we operate. Keep things civil and respectful, and we welcome your challenges and questions.”
Teehee. 
I admit that I was disingenous about my unfamiliarity with Anarchism, but based on what I’ve been told, I think it was wise to come in as a noob. What I have not been disingenuous about is my lack of familiarity with anarcho-capitalism. And I would rather directly engage than just hear it from so-and-so. Although, I’d expect you to take this all with a grain of salt, I’m being honest at this point.
As for me rolling my eyes, I invite anyone who is interested to mosey on over to FLL and address any criticism that the posters there have of this board. I used FLL to roll my eyes because it would be pretty rude to come here just to tell everyone how ridiculous I think they are. And despite a lot of the sillyness happening there, there are still some rather good points.
Have you considered the possibility that we’re not talking about whatever corporatist/mercantilist/protectionist/statist caricature of capitalism you have in mind? Capitalism - no matter how this word is used by university professors and “industrialist scumfucks” (h/t to the late Bill Hicks) - refers to the social norms by which people come to own previously unowned resources (by putting them to use) and how people voluntarily exchange property with one another. Since the scumfuck-definition of “capitalism” is so predominant, I’m more than happy to banish the use of that word from the discussion in order to debate the content of capital theory. Please tell me what is wrong with assigning ownership on the basis of first use. Please, tell me what is wrong with saying that all and only voluntary exchanges of property constitute legitimate transfer of ownership from one person to another? Or perhaps you have a problem with the idea of ownership (rightful claim to possession, that is, rightful claim to exclusive use) itself? But more important than whether there’s something wrong with these ideas, please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that these are not and have not been for at least the duration of recorded history the dominant social norms regarding the problems of ownership and property.
Clayton -
According to Merriam Webster:
Definition of ANARCHY - absence of government
Origin of ANARCHY - Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- First Known Use: 1539
Definition of CAPITALISM -: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Origin of CAPITAL - French or Italian; French, from Italian capitale, from capitale, adjective, chief, principal, from Latin capitalis (see 2capital) - First Known Use: circa 1639 (Capi I believe came from heads of sheep?)
Makes a little sense to me? Due to the negative associations of the word Anarchy, e.g. anarchy=chaos, disorder, riots, destruction of property, masked punks with circle As, etc., and my respect for for the non-aggression principle, I prefer the term voluntarism which doesn’t accurately describe the pholosophy but has much better potential of getting ones foot into the door of a closed mind.
At this point in history, this is mostly moot discussion because almost all natural resources are under the control of either private owners or governments. If we were considering privatization of US forest lands, for example, an obviously wrong solution would be to open the borders and say “the first to mow down a stand of trees owns it.” Since the US government exercises control over these lands, it is the de facto owner of them. The US government also has a pretty serious debt problem. One way to improve the state of affairs would be to auction off all public lands and use the revenues to pay down the debt (to private bondholders only, the Federal Reserve can get bent).
Would private owners who acquired new tree stands through auction of public lands lay waste to those tree stands? Well, if they’re a damn fool, maybe. But most of the buyers of tree stands would not be damn fools and would not lay waste to their tree stands and would instead do the thing that is in their own self-interest: preserve their capital value.
The same reasoning can be applied to all the government-controlled resources of the world. If you are an environmentalist or generally concerned that natural resources should be maintained in a responsible manner, then you should be pro-private ownership of all natural resources. Setting up a system where nobody has a material interest in maintaining the value of resources guarantees that those resources will be squandered and neglected.
Clayton -
“Please tell me what is wrong with assigning ownership on the basis of first use. Please, tell me what is wrong with saying that all and only voluntary exchanges of property constitute legitimate transfer of ownership from one person to another? Or perhaps you have a problem with the idea of ownership (rightful claim to possession, that is, rightful claim to exclusive use) itself? But more important than whether there’s something wrong with these ideas, please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that these are not and have not been for at least the duration of recorded history the dominant social norms regarding the problems of ownership and property.”
These are not things I necessarily have a problem with, nor would they be what I see as the definitive characterisitic of capitalism.
Clayton, I invite you over to FLL if you’d like to discuss these things. As it stands, there’s already so many discussions happening in this thread alone that I am not interested in discussing them. I am one of the few anti-capitalists here and am quite tired of explaining the same things over again to multiple people asking the same thing a different way. If you’re interested, then come on over to FLL. There are many people that are much smarter than me that can help answer any of those questions.
I don’t like the term “anarcho-capitalism”, either. I think it obscures more than it clarifies. I’m not sure why the label keeps getting used.
Clayton -
Okay then. This thread was not mean to be a trollish anti-capitalist one in a capitalist dominated board. Any concerns with anti-capitalists are probably better addressed to them. And like I said, I’m so worn out from defending myself here I would probably do a shitty job explaining myself to people who agree with me at this point.
All I will say, is that the idea of “first use” is fine on face value. First use implying infinite control runs in contradicition to how a multitude of societies functioned. Moreover, what qualifies as “use” differs as well. Despite what folks have said on other threads, there are still indigineous people in North America that claim “unused” land. And there have been times when the government (I’m speaking of Canada) tries to “use” land they claim is theirs. And they have resisted. And they have one.
Jesus, I realize I’m way late to the game, but after reading pages and pages of this debate, isn’t the difference between Pony and AnCaps obvious? It’s simply her definition of property.
Everything else is the same: she’s against the state, she’s for any voluntary association, she’s against force… But come on, if you think about what we do, we advocate that people not initiate force against person or property. That advocacy does not, unfortunately, explicitly define “property”. AnCaps then go on to define property - let’s recall that all such definitions are not the same even amongst AnCaps, but they are at least pretty close - but can’t we at least open our minds a little to at least consider and, most likely, ultimately reject, Pony’s definition of “property” in an objective, facts-based way? Of all the people that are going to come here looking for discussion, I think one that is really only disagreeing with a single “definition” is easiest to have a fruitful conversation with…
So maybe we should focus on talking about the pluses and minuses of the two definitions of “property”. To imply that there is some Platonic, perfect defintion of property just floating in the aether that we are to “find” is silly: clearly, property does not exist in a world with one person, or in a world of no scarcity. Property is a social convention, and there is value in comparing and contrasting different possible social conventions.