Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've made this argument many times here, but alas it was never taken up in a critical manner. I had given up but I'd like to go at this one last time.
Disclaimer: none of this is to say legal property ownership is wrong or 'bad', just that it is its own power structure like anything else. Efficient or otherwise.
Property laws start in land owning agricultural societies. Lords and hereditary leaders who controlled property held political domain over a countries resources, and mandated how they were to be utilized. This is for all intent and purpose political power.
Lords, barons, etc. therefore had political power. Then they started renting the land out to peasants for higher crop yield, and capitalism reformed property ownership to a more egalitarian distribution, one where anyone could own land, rent, or sell it.
That property law was brought over to the Americas by the Europeans, the natives having a shared open land system. They would have some exclusive rights when growing tobacco or corn, but off season others would settle, and native owners would give their land rights to multiple people since it amounted to the number of people who could utilize it.
So this is my conclusive point. If we were to say the government had no right to exist and we only had voluntary property owners, doesn't that give the land owners political dominion. In other words they are the government, they govern the land, and they control and rule their subjects (others who reside on it).
If anarchists were to take away the government and leave only property owners, then the political governance of the land would be divided by contractual owners who are by all means are their own independent state.
It really shows if you want any civilization you need a government, no matter what form it takes.
Imagine if, in America, ONLY property owners had governance, and their governing power was related to either a)how much land they owned or b) the value of that property.
At least, that sounds kind of like what you're saying.
Imagine if, in America, ONLY property owners had governance, and their governing power was related to either a)how much land they owned or b) the value of that property.
At least, that sounds kind of like what you're saying.
Well the larger point isn't if its good or bad. Personally I like community land trusts where individuals control their land but it is owned by the community. That offsets rent seeking behavior, limits power accumulation, and creates a more primitive economy that requires people to pool together capital and live more cooperatively. I also want a more hereditary power structure that gives rich people a sense of noblesse-oblige along with some limited social mobility.
But that is neither her nor there. You could hate that idea which is fine.
My point is once you except property rights outside of government overview you give that owner state rights.
Land and capital can be accumulated, and property owners can find ways to lease new land or claim common area as part as their domain.
You can think that is good, but its not the same thing as living in a stateless society. That is my only point.
edit: also since no one has clarified this point for me, I think owning property gives you right of sanction towards people living on your land or trespassing, meaning the owner determines the punishment rather than a judge or centralized legal system.
Last edited by Winterfall8324; 07-16-2020 at 03:43 PM..
So this is my conclusive point. If we were to say the government had no right to exist and we only had voluntary property owners, doesn't that give the land owners political dominion. In other words they are the government, they govern the land, and they control and rule their subjects (others who reside on it).
If anarchists were to take away the government and leave only property owners, then the political governance of the land would be divided by contractual owners who are by all means are their own independent state.
It really shows if you want any civilization you need a government, no matter what form it takes.
If there is no government or the government that exists get replaced by a different government, the property ownership may also go away.
When California sucede from Mexico and went to the United States, the Mexican landowners lost their land.
So yes, you're right. A stable government is important in keeping property ownership.
Well the larger point isn't if its good or bad. Personally I like community land trusts where individuals control their land but it is owned by the community. That offsets rent seeking behavior, limits power accumulation, and creates a more primitive economy that requires people to pool together capital and live more cooperatively. I also want a more hereditary power structure that gives rich people a sense of noblesse-oblige along with some limited social mobility.
But that is neither her nor there. You could hate that idea which is fine.
My point is once you except property rights outside of government overview you give that owner state rights.
Land and capital can be accumulated, and property owners can find ways to lease new land or claim common area as part as their domain.
You can think that is good, but its not the same thing as living in a stateless society. That is my only point.
edit: also since no one has clarified this point for me, I think owning property gives you right of sanction towards people living on your land or trespassing, meaning the owner determines the punishment rather than a judge or centralized legal system.
if there's no government, then you should expect to die on the spot when trespassing on someone's land, or failing to pay your rent in a timely fashion.
the 90% that precedes this is gobbledy-****. Much moreso than the "guilds" you proposed a week ago.
Do you know how to grow anything or make anything? What is the skill you have that would get you "paid" in your metaphorical sense to justify your being aided by others? Do you realize what happens to farm animals that quit producing at an acceptable rate?
I've made this argument many times here, but alas it was never taken up in a critical manner. I had given up but I'd like to go at this one last time.
Disclaimer: none of this is to say legal property ownership is wrong or 'bad', just that it is its own power structure like anything else. Efficient or otherwise.
Property laws start in land owning agricultural societies. Lords and hereditary leaders who controlled property held political domain over a countries resources, and mandated how they were to be utilized. This is for all intent and purpose political power.
Lords, barons, etc. therefore had political power. Then they started renting the land out to peasants for higher crop yield, and capitalism reformed property ownership to a more egalitarian distribution, one where anyone could own land, rent, or sell it.
That property law was brought over to the Americas by the Europeans, the natives having a shared open land system. They would have some exclusive rights when growing tobacco or corn, but off season others would settle, and native owners would give their land rights to multiple people since it amounted to the number of people who could utilize it.
So this is my conclusive point. If we were to say the government had no right to exist and we only had voluntary property owners, doesn't that give the land owners political dominion. In other words they are the government, they govern the land, and they control and rule their subjects (others who reside on it).
If anarchists were to take away the government and leave only property owners, then the political governance of the land would be divided by contractual owners who are by all means are their own independent state.
It really shows if you want any civilization you need a government, no matter what form it takes.
if there's no government, then you should expect to die on the spot when trespassing on someone's land, or failing to pay your rent in a timely fashion.
the 90% that precedes this is gobbledy-****. Much moreso than the "guilds" you proposed a week ago.
Do you know how to grow anything or make anything? What is the skill you have that would get you "paid" in your metaphorical sense to justify your being aided by others? Do you realize what happens to farm animals that quit producing at an acceptable rate?
I like guilds. I hope they grow organically however.
If small businesses can't merge or collectivize, they would set up a relationship of guilds to better production and technical skill in their craft.
You would like a guild system more than a corporate economic system as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
