‘There is no such thing as a private property anarchist, because private property is a collective ideal, not an individual ideal.’
I am not really an anarcho-capitalist, but I find this assertion to be laughable. I also find it surprising coming from a free-stater.
I think it is highly semantical issue. Collective vs individual. So it seems, that they (well, some of them) assume, that only collective can “profit” from private property, not individual? But the point is there that a collective is just a fockin bunch of individuals.
Well, for what it is worth, I believe in private property and I also believe taxation is immoral.
He says, “Anarchists are not voluntaryist. Anarchism is about individual ideals, not collective.” He says similar things about anarchy being individual and not collective throughtout the thread.
Then i guess Anarcho-socialists, Anarcho-communists, and Anarcho-syndicalists aren’t Anarchists either because those ideals are very collectivist. In fact Rothbard wrote an essay about how historically anarchy was a collectivist idealogy, which caused him to reconsider his label of ‘anarcho-capitalism’ in favor of what he called ‘nonarchist’. He changed his mind however and became comfortable with ‘anarcho-capitalism.’
Isn’t private property deduced from self-ownership? Is self-ownership a collective ideal as well?
Private property is of course a social institution, or convention.
That’s how I see it. All other arguments make me say “so what?”
What’s the point of property if there is no one else around to respect it? What happens to the notion of property when no one respects it?
I prefer property to no property for various reasons. The best defence of it, to me, is the socialist calculation problem.