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.

[peritonlogon]

relevance? please explain

[valenzuela]

Because you are saying property rights cant exist without a goverment.
I think that property rights will exist without a goverment.

There is no global goverment, yet most countries respcect the sovereignity of the other countries.
Do you think that giving all the guns to a country is a good idea?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you are saying property rights cant exist without a goverment.
I think that property rights will exist without a goverment.

There is no global goverment, yet most countries respcect the sovereignity of the other countries.
Do you think that giving all the guns to a country is a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly, I'm claiming that right (and therefore property) does not exist without agreement.

There are plenty of agreements regarding mexico. Those agreements are usually called a government, for instance, the UN, and generally speaking I am using the term government to describe a system set up to enforce agreements.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly, I'm claiming that right (and therefore property) does not exist without agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, "right" exists regardless of agreement. That's what the bloody word means. If you want to say that "right" doesn't exist, I don't agree, but that's fine, but don't try changing the meaning of the word.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not exactly, I'm claiming that right (and therefore property) does not exist without agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, "right" exists regardless of agreement. That's what the bloody word means. If you want to say that "right" doesn't exist, I don't agree, but that's fine, but don't try changing the meaning of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I didn't mean to change the meaning of a word. This is, in reality, a very difficult thing to talk about because the contexts and levels of meaning are almost impossible to make clear in a short post.

In fact, I would guess that half of the disagreements that have been taking place in this thread are simply people talking past each other.

What I mean by this is, the word "right" could be used in the following contexts, among others:

1) A thing that is inseperable from someone, ie, the concept of right that is laid out by Locke, Hobbes, or Spinoza.
2) A legal term
3) A notion
4) A social construct
5) The attributed causes behind 1)-4) ie the origin, or causes bringing about right, for example "right is inseperable from us, or given by god." This is not just semantics, this difference is actually the root cause of many disagreements in other things as well.
6) A claim


So, what I'm getting at is, the word's multiple levels of meaning can be a serious cause for apparent disagreement, where one may or may not have occured.

[valenzuela]

one thing are voluntary agreements, and another thing is one country having all the guns.
If Mexico wants to leave UN, they can do so.

[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.

[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.