a quick thought

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).


[/ QUOTE ]

So if I own a store and we are closing for the night and you want to stay, I'm not allowed to call the cops to kick you out?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can't own a store! Or, rather, he's pretending that you don't.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


I believe you got an answer numerous times from pvn and perhaps others, but please link the thread if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thread in question. The relevant discussion starts on page 5 or so. Pvn does come closest to giving an answer, which is basically, "if we don't have property, then we have nothing," but that still sound like a mandatory belief in property rights to me.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

Ding ding ding. Without ownership, you devolve to might makes right. Have fun with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still be morally opposed to the use of force without accepting property rights. That is, you could say that I only have self-ownership; that is, I have only the right to be where I am right now.

Societies have existed for centuries that acknowledge the right to be free from violence but don't acknowledge the permanent ownership of land.

[GoodCallYouWin]

So long as you do not have scarcity (or people do not perceive there to be a scarcity of anythign), property rights don't really matter (see native american societies). This isn't really relevant today.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can own yourself (no assault otherwise), just not land? Why?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).


[/ QUOTE ]

So if I own a store and we are closing for the night and you want to stay, I'm not allowed to call the cops to kick you out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can in the sense that you would probably be physically able to do so with the help of you private defense association in AC society.

But you are still coercively imposing your morality upon me if I don't believe in your conception of property rights.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"But you are still coercively imposing your morality upon me if I don't believe in your conception of property rights."

Yes, under your definition. Likewise, if I define 'coercion' as giving taffy to a donkey, you would be practicing coercion by giving taffy to a donkey. The argument FOR property rights, while subtle, is fairly well established by this point. The argument against it, while pervasive and omnipresent has been debunked fairly well (see communist russia, cuba, north korea etc.)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).


[/ QUOTE ]

So if I own a store and we are closing for the night and you want to stay, I'm not allowed to call the cops to kick you out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can in the sense that you would probably be physically able to do so with the help of you private defense association in AC society.

But you are still coercively imposing your morality upon me if I don't believe in your conception of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already said you don't have an entitlement to be in any particular location. Now you're trying to impose your conception of self-ownership upon me. What gives?

[Brainwalter]

Nick do you recognize that if no one can enforce a property claim over a piece of land, no one would be willing to make a permanent improvement to the land, such as any kind of agriculture or standing structure? After all, if you leave it for a minute anyone else can come along and claim it ("I have the right to be where I am now") right?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I agree with that position neither, but one could argue that every human has the right to physically be whereever he wants, which right do you have to deny me access to xox'x"N xox'x"E? That your grandfather bought it from somebody that bought it from somebody etc. that bought it from the Catholic church (for Europe) gives you the right to deny access to me? Where did that right come from anyway, wasn't it just invented by somebody at one point to restrict other's freedom?

Property rights are a result of interaction and a general consensus that such rights need to be in place, but there are also other conflicting rights, i.e. in Norway I have the right to use uncultivated land for recreation etc., a landowner can't deny me the right to sleep in a tent in his forest etc.. This right stems from a consensus that was in place prior to modern law.

AC'ists choose one of those conflicting rights and puts it above all, claiming that i.e. land ownership is self evident although it is a very recent invention in the big picture, although people interacted and cooperated way before that. Suddenly I have no right to put up that tent since I am coercing somebody although probably the ownership of that land is a result of coercion conducted by the church or king or something after the right to free movement was established. I don't deny that property rights, especially the mechanisms in place to be able to own capital is probably one of the main drivers of recent human progress. Thus both for ethical and practical reason it is a right I hold very high. However I can't see how it suddenly jumped to the top of the rights hierarchy and how this jump to the top doesn't have to be justified (I suddenly have to justify not allowing it to jump to the top).

(In the US this is much easier as there has been a recent relatively fair distribution of land and those losing the right to free movement to some extent agreed to give up that right (although obviously coercion was present) and the ones entering chose to enter knowing which principles would be in place.)