Does a distinction between capitalism and communism boil down to property rights? Kwisatz Haderach’s keeps bringing his arguments back to the “mix your labor”, homestead principal:
Why does owned (labor, at least) + unowned (natural resources, at least) = owned?
I suppose this comes down to something like a religious conviction (upon which all other arguments are based), but Kwisatz Haderach’s arguments still resort to ownership. He argues that a person can have the right to use a thing without the right to own the thing. Who is giving the person this right? It must be the thing’s owner. It does not matter if the owner is a person or a group of people. In his example, a man may stay in a house which was built by the commune. If that man were to leave, another man may be given permission to live there. Just because the members of the community have entered into a social contract to share ownership of the house does not mean that this situation refutes “owned + unowned = owned”. He is advocating ownership one degree removed from the individual. If another commune claimed that same house for one of its members, how can the original builders of the house claim it without “owned + unowned = owned”?
Am I missing something? Can someone explain another distinction between the anarchic-communists and anarchic-capitalists (and by some mathematical-proof-trickery, “anarchic” removed, communism and capitalism)? Also, is there any argument (other than “why/why not”) against the “owned + unowned = owned” homestead principal?
It almost seems to me, right now, that all of political theory can be distilled down to this issue of property and ownership, and I wonder if it can be argued one way or the other at all.
(first post!)