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.