Remembering Proudhon

re: Remembering Proudhon

liberty student — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:17:54 GMT

Is there a reason why Proudhon's libertarian [sic] anti-semitism was left out of this blog post?

Do we just overlook that he wanted Jews exiled or murdered as part of his libertarian [sic] agenda?

re: Remembering Proudhon

Thedesolateone — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:38:56 GMT

BP:

Untrue. It is near-impossible in the practical world, but theoretically possible. A city is generally a circle of land, a road a strip of land. Houses and land are often bought to clear the space for a road, and so why would this be "logically impossible". Indeed, that we can both conceive of this individually-owned city proves that it is possible for it to exist, however unlikely, does it not?

re: Remembering Proudhon

Brainpolice — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:07:06 GMT

Liberty Student: You really should think things through before you post. Even a corporation is generally not purely individually owned. So yes, individual ownership over everything as an absolute norm is absurd, given the fact that some degree of joint ownership over certain things is inevitable.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Brainpolice — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:04:13 GMT

Thedosolateone: the point is that it is logicistially impossible to homestead or voluntarily exchange for an entire city, particularly given the existance of current inhabitants of the city, who are not all going to unanimously sell or give up their property to a single individual. A single individual claiming ownership over an entire city, by default, is a monarchal city-state.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Brainpolice — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:02:42 GMT

"<i>everything being individually owned would leave little room for much in the way of a meaningful social life.</i>

Only if you are stuck in the 18th century."

Um, no. Think about what individual ownership over literally everthing implies. No sharing of anything. No joint ownership of anything. Yes, that leaves no room for meaningful social interaction.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Thedesolateone — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:36:07 GMT

@Brainpolice

Individual ownership of something like a city, while unlikely, is perfectly reconcilable (a word?) with libertarian anarchy; a city has no essential difference from a house or a road or a shop or a factory - it is merely a conglomeration thereof.

re: Remembering Proudhon

liberty student — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:41:42 GMT

<i>everything being individually owned would leave little room for much in the way of a meaningful social life.</i>

Only if you are stuck in the 18th century.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Brainpolice — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:56:41 GMT

I persist in taking the view that both collective and individual ownership are absurd as absolute norms. Everything being collectively owned would render the ownership rights and sovereignty of the individual within the collective virtually obsolete, and everything being individually owned would leave little room for much in the way of a meaningful social life.

Both lead to absurdities when applied as absolute norms. Individual ownership over a city or a country is nonsensical and a blatant recipe for rulership. Some degree of voluntary common ownership is practical and in fact unavoidable. On the other hand, individual ownership is necessary for meaningful independance in decision-making over your own life.

re: Remembering Proudhon

wombatron — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:47:30 GMT

@Rich333

I would say that property is not only necessarily bounded by space, but also by time, if that makes sense. In an explicit contract, for example, one can rent or borrow property for a set amount of time. Some kinds of common or collective property can be thought of as being implicit contracts of that sort; of course, only one person can use a specific thing at once, but their right to use it can be limited in time.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Rich333 — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:11:31 GMT

"The primary point was to draw attention to the double standard of saying that you have no problem with collective ownership as long as it's not imposed; as though private ownership were not imposed; as though it need not justify itself; as though it were the default situation; as though man sprang onto the scene complete with the concept of private property fully formed and codified; as though proponents of collective ownership were attempting to subvert some natural law."

It's not a double standard at all. Matter and space are usable only exclusively. You can't use the matter and space of my body so long as I'm using it to hold the form of my body; I must end my use voluntarily, or you must forcibly deny me my use. Similarly, the matter and space of my computer cannot be used by you so long as I'm using it to hold the form of my computer; either my use must be denied by force, or it must end voluntarily, before you may use the same matter and space. This is simply the nature of our universe.

Exclusive use of matter and space is not only the default, it is unavoidable. Collective ownership is the invention, and it is never truly realizable; you might come to some agreement with others whereby you and they voluntarily cease using some of the things you and they use and permit the use of such things to change hands fairly frequently amongst those within the group, and with a generally agreed upon set of customs for doing so, but you never actually get rid of the exclusive, individual, nature of the use of such things.

"Before the concept of private ownership, the land was 'owned' by everyone. Then along came a guy with a fence, and a burden to justify it."

It was used by no one, and thus owned by no one. Then the first human to show up started using some of the land, and the part actually occupied or transformed was his or hers, exclusively. Eventually, after many new generations of humans, someone came up with the idea of the fence, to help with the maintenance of livestock; all benefited from the increased food production made possible by this advancement. Sometime later, someone thought they could just claim land by fencing it off, without otherwise doing anything with it; someone else probably, and quite rightly, through a rock at their head. Eventually, as production exceeded subsistence levels, roving gangs of bandits began to settle down and claim territory and slaves; the first governments were formed, and with them the absurdity of claiming unused nature became popular, at least among the bandits and their friends.

Many generations later, fools wrongly began to confuse individual claims on unused nature with all individual claims, regardless of their basis, and came up with a new absurdity: that all unused nature is under a collective claim (which the leaders of the fools would of course manage on everyone else's behalf). This led to mass suffering and mass death wherever forcibly implemented, but remains to this day quite popular amongst unthinking fools.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Thedesolateone — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:50:51 GMT

Indeed.

I suppose utilitarianism is rather vulgar and crude, so I will not use the clear utilitarian arguments for private property.

Merely refer to what I actually said except in the first line, and also to the fact that humans do seem to be born with a natural conception of private property.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Anti- — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:55:01 GMT

"Are you saying that we should take collective ownership as default?"

Are you saying that we should take private ownership as default? Because that would be just plain silly.

The primary point was to draw attention to the double standard of saying that you have no problem with collective ownership as long as it's not imposed; as though private ownership were not imposed; as though it need not justify itself; as though it were the default situation; as though man sprang onto the scene complete with the concept of private property fully formed and codified; as though proponents of collective ownership were attempting to subvert some natural law.

The secondary point was that, yes, collective "ownership" (for lack of a better term) is indeed the default situation.

"Collective ownership as an absolute norm is ridiculous."

Your proof by assertion fails.

Before the concept of private ownership, the land was "owned" by everyone. Then along came a guy with a fence, and a burden to justify it.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Brainpolice — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:53:16 GMT

"Of course this invalidates my initial utterance of "collective ownership". Let me restate that as "multi-lateral contractual obligations" bind people into systems of pseudo-"collective ownership"."

That makes a level of sense to me.

Collective ownership as an absolute norm is ridiculous.

re: Remembering Proudhon

Thedesolateone — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:54 GMT

To # Anti-

Are you saying that we should take collective ownership as default?

How can ownership coherently be collective? If I own something, I by definition have complete control over it. If I own my house, I regulate the comings and goings of people in and out etc. If I own everything in the country I can do whatever I want with it. However, other people have similar "ownership" of, for example, the land. I am arguing not from the utilitarian argument that this is unfeasible (although that would be a fair judgement). I am instead arguing that it makes no sense to say that two people own one thing.

Of course this invalidates my initial utterance of "collective ownership". Let me restate that as "multi-lateral contractual obligations" bind people into systems of pseudo-"collective ownership".

re: Remembering Proudhon

Anti- — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:33:47 GMT

"How is socialism compatible with libertarianism?"

www.youtube.com/watch

"So long as collective ownership is not imposed, how can you have any problems with it...?"

So long as private ownership is not imposed, I have no problems with it.

But of course it must be. Indeed, this is one of the prime directives of the state: to maintain the class system, which is another way of saying, "to defend the elites' private property 'rights' against the interests of the untouchable castes (you and me)."

This is met with the rejoinder, "but so must collective ownership be enforced." Aside from being fallacious (tu quoque), the rejoinder is false.

If we begin from the Jeffersonian position that "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living" (which he meant to illustrate the injustice of perceptual charters or laws, but which carries other salient implications), then anyone claiming exclusive monopoly must justify themselves.

Thus, collective ownership is assumed; its maintenance is defensive.