Sounds like the Environmentalist logic to me.
Always interesting, indeed. And always nonsense. I’ve seen attacks on Rothbard making the claim that, essentially, he is an idiot and his arguments are inconsistent since he denounces the State for its “territorial monopoly” but he supports an individual’s “territorial monopoly.” I’ve been dissatisfied with this criticism without formulating my own well-thought out reply, but basically because there is a qualitative difference between the tyranny of a State and the “tyranny” or a man who forbids trespass over or through a small parcel of land. THe difference, IMO, is not simply reducible to a matter of size.
Someone above put it best: the difference is that the State, within its territory, infringes upon people’s rights and liberties.
I’m not aware of any advocate of “private tyrannies” (i.e., agorists, anarcho-capitalists/market-anarchists, panarchists, etc.) who believes in an individual’s right to infringe the liberty or rights of others.
It’s another f*cking strawman distraction.
“Private tyranny”? Show them this .
I was really hoping that would’ve been worthwhile…
I’ve been thinking about this too… whether we could consider private ownership of property analogous to many many small states.
I think one difference is legitimacy of ownership through homesteading or some other principle. I actually got this far in an argument with someone, where he conceded to all my points till we got to the issue of whether the USG had legit ownership over american soil.
Another difference might be that private property frequently changes owners, is split (or joined) into other properties via consent, and is the sole responsibility of its owner. Obviously this focuses on the utility of private property vs state “property”, so I think it reveals ways in which they are functionally rather than fundamentally distinct.
All I’ve seen is: “The free market oppresses the masses!” and “Libertarianism is such an insane philosophy.”
a man’s property in goods outside of his body, is merely an extension of his body property.
‘tyrant!’ has emotive power and meaning in the context of politics, as it references the tyranny, or illegitimate force of a tyrant over a subordinate.
how can i be a tyrant over myself?, a tyrant over my property.? i can’t, any-more than i can be a slave to myself… A tyrant confuses anothers property with his own, and so proceeds to act illegitimately, tyrannically. this is evil.
an owner confuses nothing, merely reserves the right to exclude 3rd parties from his property. If they find this objectionable. so be it. if they take up force against it. they are themselves the tyrants.
Be careful there, I have often argued with socialists that claim that it is not personal property what they want abolished but the means of production in private hands, I guess that would be the company that makes the laptops.
Personally I found this argument very annoying and hard to refute since they can conveniently turn the abolition of private property into something innocuous and abstract, after all who wouldn’t want a free laptop?
Irrationalists. Why is it harmful to own the means of production yet not personal items?
Because private ownership of the means of production enables exploitation of the have-nots, by the haves. Or so the argument goes.
Their argument shatters to pieces when one takes it out of an abstract context and into a tangible one. What if my personal property is a printer, and I happen to use it to print out and sell postcards to people. Am I exploiting anyone by owning this printer? Should it be taken out of my hands and given to some mythical ‘society’? Or to continue with the laptop example, when does the laptop stop being ‘personal property’? Is it before or after I used it to produce a profitable piece of software?
Most people who hate libertarianism seem to think it’s just a philosophy for rich people.
I think its linked with the labor theory of value, since according to them only labor adds value a mean of production that employs other human beings would be inherently exploitative.
A printer or a laptop would continue to be personal property I guess.
PD: Can you exploit a machine?
And yet the ownership of goods does not enable such ‘exploitation’? If I owned all the shoes in the world then could I not ‘exploitate’ all others according to their definitions?
Yes (and as a scholar of socialism, you may understand this better than I do).
My understanding is that anything more than pure usufrucht ownership (by possession & use) is labeled as “private property” and hence, “exploitative.” To use your example, the fact that you “own” all of the shoes in the world puts you in a position of economic power over all those who want shoes but have none.
The hinge seems to be at the “possession & use”, i.e., it’s impossible for you to constructively possess & use all of the shoes in the world, therefore your property claim in them is illegitimate. In fact, it’s impossible for you to constructively use and possess more than a few pair of shoes at any time.
IMO, the distinction between propertarian anarchism and libsoc is more a question of “At what point does abandonment attach?” since it seems to me that the basis of ownership (homesteading/possession & use, etc) is not terribly contentious.