A question for ACers

[peritonlogon]

I recently posted this an another thread and got no response...so, I'm reposting this question to ACers in a new thread.

Shakezula06 said In this thread


[ QUOTE ]

It is a (non) system devoid of government accompanied by a culture that recognizes private property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand private property without a government of some kind. I know all of the enlightenment thinkers seemed to call it a natural "right." That does not make sense to me. I only understand property "rights" in terms of agreements that hold some sort of weight. As in, "mine" only makes sense if there is a "thine." And the only way "mine" can exist is if you recognize it as mine. The moment this stops, it is no longer mine, I just wish it were.

This seems like a possible problem for AC because, if I'm right, then property itself cannot exist without government (government here used to mean some method of enforcing rules and agreements in order to make the agreements have weight). I'd like to hear your response.

(My understanding of property largely comes from reflection upon a number of Enlightenment political philosophers but, mostly Rousseau's discorse on the origin of and foundatin of inequality.)

To clairfy, the notion of "right" is something that ought to be, and something that we can more or less make happen, but it is not something that exists in nature. It is, instead, a product not a foundation of civilization.

My general perspective here is empirical and utilitarian. So, I would really only consider something a "right" if it were demostrably a right, which, really amounts to there being no actual rights, only rights which we, as a people, assert and agree on. If most people, or even some powerful people, cease to recognize a right it can no longer be considered a right unless some people are willing to fight for it and win. So, in my understanding of a right, from an empircal and utilitarian perspective, only exists if people are willing to assert the right and are able to get others to agree upon the right. Which means that, with or without a political state, rights themselves carry no permanent weight.

[valenzuela]

How is it that Mexico has sovereignity over its territory? There is no global goverment.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
To clairfy, the notion of "right" is something that ought to be, and something that we can more or less make happen, but it is not something that exists in nature. It is, instead, a product not a foundation of civilization.

My general perspective here is empirical and utilitarian. So, I would really only consider something a "right" if it were demostrably a right, which, really amounts to there being no actual rights, only rights which we, as a people, assert and agree on. If most people, or even some powerful people, cease to recognize a right it can no longer be considered a right unless some people are willing to fight for it and win. So, in my understanding of a right, from an empircal and utilitarian perspective, only exists if people are willing to assert the right and are able to get others to agree upon the right. Which means that, with or without a political state, rights themselves carry no permanent weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think about this, you might see that it implies that governments can't guarantee property rights. When ACists talk about property rights they mean the same thing as you, property being a) that which you assert control over and can defend your claim to, and b) those claims to property that are respected by others. They are not saying that without a state property rights are sacred, absolute and inviolable. You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs. How then, can you not understand why there's no reason people can't assert ownership and develop systems for establishing and respecting property rights and resolving conflicts without a state?

Sorry if this post isn't clear enough, but it seems to me like your idea of property is a lot like the ACist idea of it, but you haven't really shown any reason your idea requires a government to enforce. There are good Borodog OP's on property you can read and see why enlightenment ideas on property are very applicable to AC.

Edit: Try THIS. Begins with borodog's thoughts on private property ex state.

[AlexM]

Under ACism, property comes about as an effort of labor. If you take a branch from a tree and work it into a bow, that bow is your property. You might trade your bow for something else and then that something else would be your property. You might also go out hunting and kill a deer. Now, through your effort, the deer meat and the deer skin is your property. This is pretty obvious to most people. It's the land property part where people get confused, but it's not that much different.

Let's say a person goes out into the wilderness by themselves and builds something. They take 5 acres of land, and on that land they build themselves a home and turn the rest into farmland and grow crops, which they use to trade to other people for other stuff, for the benefit of all. By what we've established, the crops are obviously their property, but is the land itself? How can it not be? The land is much improved from its natural state due to this person's labor. If this person died and someone else took over, that person would have a *much* easier time with the house already built, the trees already cleared and the soil ripe for farming. Thus, by this person's labor, the land has significantly gained in value. Certainly they have more of a right to reap the rewards of this value than anyone else, and this translates into ownership.

To take it one step further, if this person decided to move on to something else and they pay someone else to take care of this land, they are still contributing to the upkeep of the land. If, on the other hand, instead of paying someone to take care of it they instead neglect it, they start to lose the right to the land. A person maintains a right to own land only so long as they care for that land. By neglecting it, they can lose that right and leave someone else with an opportunity to claim it for their own.

FAQ this baby Shake!

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
If most people, or even some powerful people, cease to recognize a right it can no longer be considered a right unless some people are willing to fight for it and win.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not understanding what a right is, and I dunno if I can explain it so you will. A right is something that people have absent the interference of other people. A right exists regardless of what you actually have. Slaves in this country's history always had the right to freedom. They didn't actually have freedom, but they had the right to it. People have the right to say whatever they want, but some governments might inhibit that right. Same with religion.

Confusion comes from the fact that during the late 1800s, the word "rights" started getting corrupted for use in other things that weren't actually rights at all. Voting, for example, isn't actually a right. It's something that only exists with government. If you look in the original Constitution, you won't see a "right to vote" listed anywhere, because the founders didn't use the word "right" in that fashion but in the fashion I described. So now the term "right" includes things granted by the government (right to vote, right to health care, right to Social Security). The worst thing about this is that with this corruption of the word, people are now going back and changing the meaning of the original Constitution by applying the new definition to what was said under the old definition. This is why interpreting based on original intent is so important. Many words have had their meanings change over time, and we cannot allow meaning changes in words to change the meanings of legal documents. (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the word "right" was intentionally corrupted exactly in order to corrupt the Constitution)

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ACists don't believe that rights are human contructs, that's socialists. ACists believe that rights are inherently part of man and part of the universe. Whether you believe that man/the universe was created by God or not is irrelevant to this. ACism is completely compatible with a belief in "God given rights". Socialism is not.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand private property without a government of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the idea:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...take_2_320.mp3

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...e_beasts32.mp3

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...for_beasts.mp3

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand private property without a government of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the idea:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...take_2_320.mp3

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...e_beasts32.mp3

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...for_beasts.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

Way more complicated than needed. :P

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't speak for "the AC crowd". I know that some of them (borodog) believe rights are human constructs. I was trying to show the OP that this does not doom AC theory, but in fact supports it as argued by Borodog. Other ACists (BCPVP? AlexM is a minarchist IIRC) may believe in god-given rights and that's fine.