When Property is Not Theft
Those duly informed will recognize the above reference to Pierre-Joseph Proudon, the guy who came up with the term "anarchist," but who also unfortunately gave it connotations associated with communism — so as to forever vex those of us who recognize the immorality of the State in all of its manifestations, even the "non-state" state of state communism.
One question that eventually occurs to anyone who has a habit of thinking (meaning: for themselves; the only possible way) is that of the fundamental nature of property; that aspect of it beyond the simple but effective manner is has typically been established: brutish conquest, assertion of power, and legal fiat (notes to self). They aren’t making any more of it (at least in the "dirt" sense), the world’s population is increasing, so by what moral right can some lone individually properly lay any absolute claim to it?
Billy Beck has your answers.
Update: Wow; blast from the past. Writing this post reminded me of an exchange I had with a friend of mine, from when I had lived in France. This is from October, 11, 1996, so just over 10 years ago.
There are two additional things that I should have mentioned about Proudhon specifically, and his version of anarchy and those who support it in general. Both involve inherent contradictions.
1. The saying he is most famous for:
"Property is theft." (la propriété, c’est le vol)
Is, in its very self, a contradiction. The concept of theft presupposes the concept of property. In order to have theft, you must first have property. Thus, with a cute-sounding, catchy phrase, he manipulatively attempts to put forth meaning by means of a contradiction.
2. The other contradiction involves the same thing, but goes to the very root of the version of anarchy which disallows property.
In my last post, I gave a hint as to what sorts of things in nature give rise to the fact of property. Because of the sorts of beings that humans are, our tool of survival, rather than being sinew, claw, and tooth, is our mind. Specifically, reason, that which differentiates us from all other animals.
Man requires values for survival, and reason is his means of acquiring them. This subsumes a whole host of things which are requirements for producing those values necessary for survival. One of those things is property. Men acquire and protect property as a natural state of affairs dictated by their requirements in order to survive.
In fact, all animals make claims to property. What differentiates civilized men is that we establish organized means of sorting out conflicting claims with respect to property, whereas, other animals resort to the only tools at their disposal–typically, their claws and teeth.
The anarchists against property have done something utterly incredible. They have reasoned that property arises from government, not from the nature of man. In so doing, they have elevated government to a status in nature that might make even the most die-hard statist blush with envy.
A strange thing for an "anarchist" to do.
The proper position for the anarchist should be that government is a fiction, an aberration, a god created by the people in the image of their mystical god. Government is nothing more than the reification of the concept of god, mother, and father all combined into one.
Marx saw religion as the opium of the people, and sought about to substitute it for another opiate–the state. What he didn’t realize is that god and the state are essentially one in the same!
So, in the first case above, we have anarchists using a property-dependent concept to argue against property. In the second case, we have them setting up the government as primary to the nature of man, in order to establish property as something derived from government, in order that they can then dispense with it as they dispense with government.
And if they really hold government as such a primary, what would they be doing by tearing it down?
This all leads me to the conclusion, once again, that anarchists against property are not primarily anarchists. They are value-grabbing nihilists first and foremost.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
"The Inuit had no concept of land ownership; the Tlingit held that landscape features were property, and saw clan ownership as being above individual ownership."
Yeah, and I notice how well they developed stuff like frozen foods, the appendectomy, and jet engines.
See the point yet?
"The Inuit had no concept of land ownership"
Good, then they shouldn't mind when we take it.
Frank, you're a regular museum piece, you should charge admission.
"Men acquire and protect property as a natural state of affairs dictated by their requirements in order to survive."
What's this "property" you speak of? The Inuit had no concept of land ownership; the Tlingit held that landscape features were property, and saw clan ownership as being above individual ownership. Which concept of "property" is more "natural"? The European one, or the Inuit one, or the Tlingit one? Why?
In the end, the concept of "property" is a product of a society's culture, and thus varies according to the society. It's not some sort of objective natural force that exists outside of people's minds.
(And Proudhon's "property arises from government" means that the unnaturalness of government means that property itself is also an unnatural, artificial construct. You can disagree with that — as I did — but your strawman interpretation of Proudhon's government was totally silly and uncalled for.)
Frank, you're assuming I was trying to make an argument. Why would I bother?
Frank:
Under what possible authority can a claim to non-ownership be made?
"What in the blazes does any of this has to do with whether Locke's definition of "property" is somehow intrinsic to nature?"
Frank, are you certain that either Locke or Billy used or implied the concept "intrinsic?" If not, how would that effect the form of your question?
Billy,
Given the Inuits' location, frozen food might not have the best example.
Rob
Billy Beck:
"Yeah, and I notice how well they developed stuff like frozen foods, the appendectomy, and jet engines."
What in the blazes does any of this has to do with whether Locke's definition of "property" is somehow intrinsic to nature? The point, Billy Beck, is that your original point is filled with bogosity.
Kyle Bennett:
No land ownership means _nobody_ can "take" land as their own.
"Frank, you're a regular museum piece, you should charge admission."
Wow. I'm so very devastated by this kung-fu technique.
* * *
Hmm. Strawmen. Ignoratio elenchi. ad hominem. With all these tools, who needs facts?
"The point", my dear dough-brain, is in the differences in how people who don't understand property live, compared with people who do.
Kyle Bennett:
Yes, why should you bother to make an argument? Better to simply launch random potshots at people, no?
Nikoley:
The "authority" of the customs and practices of a society, thank you very much.
And by talking about how "property" stems from some sort of "nature of man", which as far as I can tell assumes that this "nature" is intrinsic, rather than emerging separately from each society.
But even if I forgo the "intrinsic" part, what in the blazes does "frozen foods, the appendectomy, and jet engines" have to do with whether property — and only the Lockean concept of property, all others being Wrong Wrong Wrong — arises from the "nature of man"?
"The "authority" of the customs and practices of a society, thank you very much."
OK, but implicit in that is that the customs and practices of one society trump the customs and practices of another where interests conflict.
On what basis, what authority, are such claims resolved? Wherein lies the ultimate authority?
…Oh, regarding the "intrinsic" stuff, you indicated the definition of property is intrinsic.
Now, that may have just been a manner of speaking, which I'll heartily concede, but there's an important distinction. It is man's attributes which are intrinsic (and that's tantamount to a tautology). Property rights are an integration of a conceptual hierarchy of concepts that begin with identifying man's nature and his requirements for survival and for fulfilling his purpose, which is to achieve happiness for his own sake.
The virtue inherent in undertaking such an endeavor begins, in part, with the molding of property to man's use and that doesn't happen without the corollary right of property. This is not to say that there is any right to steal the property of others, just because one can "make better use of it."
What I'm trying to get you to consider is that asserting a claim to "no property rights" is tantamount to a contradiction. Asserting anything with respect to the disposition of property is to assert some right to property — which, I will add, is only natural.
I understand that various cultures have viewed the disposition of property on an individual level differently, but all are asserting rights over it.
That's the real given we must contend with. That's where the argument begins.