anarcho socialism question

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha. I'm not defending statism, I'm defending anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent "defending" anything. Youre making proclamations that you see as self-evident, without support, and without responding to specific requests to support them.

[wtfsvi]

Oh no. It's quite the opposite. You are the ones that see this right to own land and rule it like your own little state, as self-evident. (Well not you copernicus, you are a statist.) You say the difference between a land owner and a state is the land owner "legitimately" owns the land. It's just something you've made up. A communist would say exactly the opposite, that the difference between a land owner and "the people" is that "the people" legitimately owns the land.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha. I'm not defending statism, I'm defending anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the view that we can be anarchists, with a set of rules in place to prevent any of us from acquiring too much property. It's an artifical limitiation on human interaction, which basically makes it a state. Consider for example, a person who has $100 less than the "maximum" amount. What happens if someone tries to buy something from him that earns him $200? Will someone step in? Someone who is not a party to the transaction but has a set of rules that they decide need to be obeyed in all transactions? Who is this mystery man in an anarchist society?

[wtfsvi]

I'm not talking about set rules. I'm saying individuals have no obligation to respect private property. But almost everyone will agree that respecting some right to private property is necessary to make society work well and individuals feel well, so that will be the standard. And if someone doesn't respect property at all they will probably face severe negative social and economical sanctions.

Society should be based on the individual's right to free choice. In the US a true anarchy would probably not be very far from ACism, since a lot of people have a lot of respect for property rights. This will result in a little less freedom and a little more average prosperity for americans. In Russia, a true anarchy would probably mean less respect for private property, that would mean more freedom and less average prosperity. (But probably more equality, which will probably make up for the lack of prosperity at least a little bit. A lot of people's assesment of their own situation comes from comparing themselves to their neighbours, afterall.)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about set rules. I'm saying individuals have no obligation to respect private property. But almost everyone will agree that respecting some right to private property is necessary to make society work well and individuals feel well, so that will be the standard. And if someone doesn't respect property at all they will probably face severe negative social and economical sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but you're being far too vague. Let me outline my understanding of what you're saying, and you correct me if I'm wrong:

You're saying we need to recognize property rights sometimes, but not other times, because that is the most beneficial overall. If we don't REQUIRE recognition of any property rights, then people will go about their business, recognizing property rights as they see fit. Some people will not recognize "enough" property rights in others, and others will marginalize them by choosing not to interact with them until. Some people will recognize "too much" property rights and claim an excess of property for themselves. They will also be marginalized by others who don't feel they should be allowed to own so much and will choose not to interact with them. In the end, these opposing passively coercive forces will establish a sort of "social norm" for the extent to which property rights are recognized.

How did I do?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well not you copernicus, you are a statist.) You say the difference between a land owner and a state is the land owner "legitimately" owns the land. It's just something you've made up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I dont "say that". A state can also legititmately own land. More importantly absolute respect for property rights is not something "made up" for its own sake. It is a consequence of productive human activity. You can nitpick about whether it is "natural" or not, but without it there is simply no hope for orderly progress and economic growth.

[wtfsvi]

Yes, that's right. That's one of the best case scenarios anyway. I can't tell you what free choice will lead to, only guess (and hope).

I'm glad I get to hide behind that one for once [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well not you copernicus, you are a statist.) You say the difference between a land owner and a state is the land owner "legitimately" owns the land. It's just something you've made up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I dont "say that". A state can also legititmately own land. More importantly absolute respect for property rights is not something "made up" for its own sake. It is a consequence of productive human activity. You can nitpick about whether it is "natural" or not, but without it there is simply no hope for orderly progress and economic growth.

[/ QUOTE ] Then people will agree to respect private property if they value orderly progress and economic growth. It's just freedom.

I know you don't say that a state can't own land. The ACists are saying that. I don't necessarily disagree with them, but I think they are being hypocritical when they think there is any real difference between a state ruling a piece of land and a private person doing it.