Menu Property is theft?

Perhaps the most basic, and paradoxically the most contentious, tenet of anarchism is its opposition to private property. In 1840, Pierre !oseph Proudhon "rote #hat is Property? $r, an In%uiry into the Principle of &i'ht and of (overnment. )his is considered one of the most influential "or*s of anarchist philosophy and is the ori'in of the rallyin' cry +property is theft,- In it, Proudhon poses this %uestion. If I "ere as*ed to ans"er the follo"in' %uestion/ #hat is slavery? and I should ans"er in one "ord, It is murder, my meanin' "ould be understood at once. 0o extended ar'ument "ould be re%uired to sho" that the po"er to ta*e from a man his thou'ht, his "ill, his personality, is a po"er of life and death. and that to enslave a man is to *ill him. #hy, then, to this other %uestion/ #hat is property, may I not li*e"ise ans"er, It is robbery, "ithout the certainty of bein' misunderstood. the second proposition bein' no other than a transformation of the first? #ith this %uestion in mind, I "ould li*e to expand upon the distinction bet"een +private property- and +personal possessions- I made in #hat I believe in. In doin' so, I "ould li*e to ma*e particular reference to the +anarcho- capitalists of the 1ustrian 2chool of 3conomics. 4i*e most anarchists, I consider +anarcho- capitalism to be an oxymoron, as by its very nature capitalism is not anarchic. 1n caps have ta*en the dictionary definition of anarchy as +no 'overnment- and pasted it onto their ideolo'y, utterly for'ettin' that anarchism is in fact a movement of philosophy and activism, "ith a lon' history and tradition, based upon principles of libertarian socialism and opposed to all forms of hierarchy and domination, not 5ust the state. (oin' further, I "ould even su''est that an caps do not "ant to dismantle the machinery of the state, but merely privatise it.

Murray &othbard, for an +anarcho- capitalist, is brilliant at inadvertently demonstratin' the 'enuine end of his movement. )he dilemma he posed "as this/ "hat if a 6in', respondin' to the threat of a stron' ri'ht "in' +libertarian- movement, +employ7s8 a cunnin' strata'em,- "here he +proclaims his 'overnment to be dissolved, but 5ust before doin' so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area of his *in'dom to the 9o"nership: of himself and his relatives.- &ather than taxes, his sub5ects no" pay rent and he can +re'ulate the lives of all the people "ho presume to live on- his property as he "ishes. 1 *in' by another name ; landlord. &othbard:s next remar*s hi'hli'ht precisely ho" close the parallel is/ 0o" "hat should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challen'e? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bo" to this subterfu'e, and resi'n themselves to livin' under a re'ime no less despotic than the one they had been battlin' for so lon'. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for no" the *in' and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians: very principle of the absolute ri'ht of private property, an absoluteness "hich they mi'ht not have dared to claim before. )his 'larin' contradiction is a'ain demonstrated by &othbard "hen he correctly identifies the state as ille'itimate because it +arro'ates to itself a monopoly of force< over a 'iven area territorial area- and yet then defends private property because +7o8bviously, in a free society, 2mith has the ultimate decision ma*in' po"er over his o"n 5ust property, !ones over his, etc.- In both cases the 'et out clause, the only difference &othbard can cite bet"een the 2tate and private property, is that the latter "as ac%uired +5ustly.2o, "hat ma*es property 5ust? 1ccordin' to +anarcho- capitalists and ri'ht -libertarians,- the =omestead Principle/ )hou'h the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a +property- in his o"n +person.- )his nobody has any ri'ht to but himself. )he +labour- of his body and the +"or*- of his hands, "e may say,

are properly his. #hatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that 0ature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour "ith it, and 5oined to it somethin' that is his o"n, and thereby ma*es it his property. 3ven to me, this sounds utterly reasonable. =o"ever, that is because it doesn:t sound li*e capitalism. In the above para'raph, "e have an elo%uent 5ustification for "or*er o"nership of the means of production, for each community holdin' its land in common, and for the re5ection of any claims by a landlord or employer to property on "hich others toil. >rom "hence, then, does he 'et the 5ustification for private property in the capitalist sense of the "ord? 2imply, there is no re%uirement under the homesteadin' principle that a resource is in re'ular use for the proprietor to retain it, only that it has been transformed once throu'h labor. 1fter this, the propertarian may transfer o"nership to someone else, discard, or rent the property "ith no stipulations on any further labour input. ?ut is that not ho" states came into bein'? )he concept of nationhood arose prior to the state, and it "as the rise of feudalism "hich used the labour of those nations to develop the lord:s or *in':s +property- @dominionA. )he *in', lord, or baron, as the propertarian, 'ained property throu'h accumulation of "ealth and po"er and the use of such to 'ain dominion over a land. Bet a'ain, &othbard:s o"n "ords spea* a'ainst +anarcho- capitalist thou'ht/ If the 2tate may be said to properly o"n its territory, then it is proper for it to ma*e rules for everyone "ho presumes to live in that area. It can le'itimately seiCe or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really o"ns the entire land surface. 2o lon' as the 2tate permits its sub5ects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other o"ner "ho sets do"n rules for people livin' on his property. $f course, he %ualified this by sayin' that of course the state does not +5ustly- o"n its property but both the state and the capitalist in fact ac%uired property by +homesteadin',- ho"ever he mi'ht have used the

term to @falselyA differentiate +5ust- private property from ille'itimate state property. &eturnin' to Proudhon in 1840, "e find the =omstead Principle already effectively refuted. If the liberty of man is sacred, it is e%ually sacred in all individuals. that, if it needs property for its ob5ective action, that is, for its life, the appropriation of material is e%ually necessary for all . . . Does it not follo" that if one individual cannot prevent another . . . from appropriatin' an amount of material e%ual to his o"n, no more can he prevent individuals to come. < )he purchaser dra"s boundaries, fences himself in . . . =ere, then, is a piece of land upon "hich, henceforth, no one has a ri'ht to step, save the proprietor and his friends . . . 4et 7this8. . . multiply, and soon the people . . . "ill have no"here to rest, no place to shelter, no 'round to till. )hey "ill die at the proprietor:s door, on the ed'e of that property "hich "as their birthri'ht. and the proprietor, "atchin' them die, "ill exclaim, 92o perish idlers and va'rants.: 2o, althou'h +the liberty and security of the rich do not suffer from the liberty and security of the poor. far from that, they mutually stren'then and sustain each other- "e see that +the rich man:s ri'ht of property, on the contrary, has to be continually defended a'ainst the poor man:s desire for property.- )he very notion of private property renders, for example, travellers: camps +ille'al.- 0or are they the only ones "ho, in the propertarian system, must contest for the +le'ality- of their homes or die freeCin' in the streets E steal from and *ill others to survive because they have no home. Private property, by its very definition, needs to be enforced. #hether a state or its private e%uivalent in protection and security companies, the private propertarian needs someone to act a'ainst trespassin' ; a +crime- "hich, as it involves no victims, no violence, no loss of safety or liberty, should not even exist. )he anarchist:s ar'ument "ith private property, then, is that it is exploitative, it is coercive, and it entrenches the class system "hereby the fe" live in privile'e "hilst the 'reat many face poverty and deprivation. 1s the "riters of 1n 1narchist >1F put it, +social relations bet"een capitalists

and employees can never be e%ual, because private o"nership of the means of production 'ives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination.)he an caps contend this by definin' coercion as the purely overt threat or use of physical force, i'norin' economic coercion and the restriction of choice throu'h the environment of property domination. )o them, then, there is no coercion in the relationship bet"een landlord and tenant or employer and employee. Instead, they see it is a voluntary and mutually beneficial transation. #hilst it is true that the tenant or employee does benefit from their transaction ; they no" have a roof over their head or a "ay to provide for themselves and their family ; this does not mean the transaction is non coercive. )here is no e%ual footin' in the relationship, especially "hen it comes to potential loss. )he landlord or employer can afford to re5ect a potential tenant or employee ; he can al"ays find others in such an event. ?ut the tenant or employee has no choice. 3ven if it is not that one, he must submit to some landlord or employer. If not, he is left homeless or 5obless. )he threat is there/ "or* or starve, rent or be "ithout shelter. )hese are choices, yes, but the choice is a*in to the mu''er:s +'ive me money or die,- not to the ice cream vendor:s +raspberry or vanilla.- 4i*e"ise, it is also true that the threat is not made by the employer or landlord themselves, but the threat nonetheless remains, created by the very system of private property they operate in. 0ot all heads of state are despots or tyrants, and some can even have the very best of intentions, but that does not ne'ate the fact that the system itself is one of dominion and servility. $nce a'ain, #hat Is Property sums up this position perfectly. )he proprietor, the robber, the hero, the soverei'n G for all these titles are synonymous G imposes his "ill as la", and suffers neither contradiction nor control. that is, he pretends to be the le'islative and the executive po"er at once . . . 7and so8 property en'enders despotism . . . )hat is so

clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember "hat it is, and observe "hat happens around him. Property is the ri'ht to use and abuse . . . if 'oods are property, "hy should not the proprietors be *in's, and despotic *in's G *in's in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? 1nd if each proprietor is soverei'n lord "ithin the sphere of his property, absolute *in' throu'hout his o"n domain, ho" could a 'overnment of proprietors be any thin' but chaos and confusion? 2hare this/ )"itterH >aceboo*14 2tumbleIpon Di'' &eddit More 4i*e this/ 4i*e ?e the first to li*e this. 4eave a &eply Bour email address "ill not be published. &e%uired fields are mar*ed J 0ame J 3mail J #ebsite Komment 0otify me of follo" up comments via email. 0otify me of ne" posts via email. Pin'bac*/ #hy there is no liberty to be found on the +libertarian- ri'ht L Property is )heft, Pin'bac*/ ?ritish "or*ers aren:t laCy ; "e:re run into the 'round M underclassrisin'.net ephraiyim on N8E10EN010 at 1H/4O

2o ho" does one deal "ith those "ho, say, refuse to "or*? >or that matter "hat of those "ho, trou'h disability or a'e can no lon'er "or*. =o" do they live. If the community ta*es responsibility for them "ho decides "hat resources "ill be made available to them. If they are old or sic* their share may be very 'reat indeed compared to a healthy, youn' "or*er. #ill said "or*er not come to resent those "ho do not "or* but still receive a portion or maybe a 'reater portion. If all that are able are expected to "or* then ho" "ould that be enforced and by "hom. If the community has an ethical obli'ation to care for the poor and sic* mi'ht the one "ho "ill not "or* be admitted once his lac* ma*es him so ill that the community must then ta*e him in. I realiCe the 1 K:s have a lot of problems to "or* out but I am not sure if the 1 2:s have any less. In both cases eliminatin' 'overnment is 'oin' to re%uire a lot on the part of those "ho a'ree to follo" such communities. &eply P Phil Dic*ens on Q0E10EN010 at 10/1R )he point is about reachin' a democratic consensus, and people are of course free to abstain from that consensus, or to ar'ue differently, and so ho" any individual anarchist community "ould act is not somethin' I can 'ive a blueprint of. =o"ever, in my personal opinion, those "ho can "or* and don:t should be a minor issue. I:m not a primitivist, so I see no issue "ith technolo'y eliminatin' the more menial tas*s and the "or*in' "ee* bein' 'reatly reduced more 'enerally. 1nd it should be no 'reat sha*e to share "hat is left amon'st communities. People are more invested in their labour if it is not done simply to *eep the boss fat in return for a pittance, and a community or society or'anised on the basis of mutal aid has a different mentality any"ay than one or'anised to serve those at the top of a class system. &eply P

(host on 1SE0OEN01N at NQ/44 Bes, I:m not an anarchist, I:m not for +liberty- or a'ainst hierarchy. )his is "hy I don:t call myself an anarchist, I:m a libertarian and am 'enerally dis'usted at anarchism. &eply P >31)I&32

More... &3K30) K$MM30)2 )hou'hts on &evoluti< on Kommunism throu'h the eyes of< 5afran*lin0H on Kharity, mutual aid, and class< Marxist =ypocrisy 10< on )he principle and practice of < &ita cahull on Klass "ar and the a'ents of th< &ita cahull on Klass "ar and the a'ents of th< &3K30) 1&)IK432 Property is )heft, has moved< $n the trade unions and +borin' from "ithin?uildin' the ran* and file )he revolutionary 'eneral stri*e in an era of casualisation )he pros and cons of the blac* bloc 2tandin' on the pic*et line Kommunism throu'h the eyes of corpses Defeatin' the cuts ; an anarcho syndicalist strate'y 1narcho syndicalism and the limits of trade unionism >ascism, fundamentalism, and the left )$P P$2)2

Property is theft? #hat is anarcho syndicalism/ revolutionary unionism 1narchism, ethnicity, and culture/ blac* anarchism Kontact T subscribe 3ducation and child rearin' 3xplorin' anarcha feminism/ sex and suffra'e 3xplorin' anarcha feminism/ "omen and class stru''le 1narchism and the capital punishment debate Kommunism throu'h the eyes of corpses Property is )heft, has moved... )&I)=, &312$0 T 4I?3&)B )he last post 04E0OEN01N 1narchists and trade unionists rattle Iain Duncan 2mith in ?ootle NRE0SEN01N 14e 4iverpool feel the impact of another pic*et and communications bloc*ade NOE0SEN01N 4iverpool maintains the momentum a'ainst "or*fare N4E0SEN01N 1nti "or*fare activity at ?ootle !obcentre Plus N0E0SEN01N >$44$# M3 $0 )#I))3& 3rror/ Please ma*e sure the )"itter account is public. )1(2 activism anarcha feminism 1narchism anarchist anarchist communism 1narchist >ederation anarcho syndicalism anti fascism antifa ?0P Kapitalism class stru''le class "ar K0) direct action 3mma (oldman e%uality >ascism Imperialism Islam I## libertarian mi*hail ba*unin militancy 0ationalism 0oam Khoms*y Patriotism PK2 Pierre !oseph Proudhon private property racism revolution revolutionary leadership &udolph &oc*er self or'anisation 2ocialist #or*ersU Party 2ol>ed solidarity 2olidarity >ederation terrorism )he state trade unions unite a'ainst fascism van'uard of the proletariat "or*in' class

1&K=IV32 December N011 !uly N011 May N011 1pril N011 March N011 >ebruary N011 !anuary N011 December N010 0ovember N010 $ctober N010 2eptember N010 1u'ust N010 !uly N010 !une N010 May N010 1pril N010 March N010 >ebruary N010 !anuary N010 December N00R 0ovember N00R $ctober N00R 2eptember N00R 1u'ust N00R !uly N00R !une N00R May N00R 1pril N00R March N00R 1&)IK432 ?B K1)3($&B

Vie" >ull 2ite

0o" 1vailable, Do"nload #ordPress for 1ndroid ?lo' at #ordPress.com.