Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism
January 18, 2017 at 9:20 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2017 at 9:22 pm by log.)
Definitions
1. Private property is monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others.
2. [T]he state [is] any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)
The agent or group that succeeds in holding monopoly control over resources is called the owner of the resources. It is immediately obvious that private property is the state, renamed.
So defined, private property is a coercive relationship between agents, and not necessarily a relationship between agents and non-agents.
Moreover:
1. There is nothing in the definition of private property which limits the amount of property an individual or group can own.
2. Nor is there any limit to behaviors the owner(s) may choose to call "aggression" against their property and thus respond with force to eliminate.
3. In particular, the only real limitation on the contents of contracts between owners and renters is the enforcers' qualms, which payment tends to overcome.
4. In general, when contractural conditions for use of property are costlier than force, force will be applied and a change in ownership / regime may result.
5. Therefore, in principle, private property results in totalitarianism and war.
Against the definition of private property offered above may be asserted the "gainful use" theory of private property - which may be reduced to the notion that touching something first justifies threat of force against those who might threaten to touch it second. Threat of force against agents with respect to territory remains, preserving the identification of private property with the state.
Murray Rothbard formulated the Non-Aggression Principle as follows:
From the definition of private property, we can now see that this fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory is self-negating. Private property consists of threats against others. Without threats, there is no private property.
The upshot is anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is statism, renamed, only shorn of religious encroachments. The situation is made even more unpleasant once we assert our bodies are our private property, but that's a subject for another post.
This post is properly sourced.
1. Private property is monopoly control over resources asserted by threat of force against others.
2. [T]he state [is] any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)
The agent or group that succeeds in holding monopoly control over resources is called the owner of the resources. It is immediately obvious that private property is the state, renamed.
So defined, private property is a coercive relationship between agents, and not necessarily a relationship between agents and non-agents.
Moreover:
1. There is nothing in the definition of private property which limits the amount of property an individual or group can own.
2. Nor is there any limit to behaviors the owner(s) may choose to call "aggression" against their property and thus respond with force to eliminate.
3. In particular, the only real limitation on the contents of contracts between owners and renters is the enforcers' qualms, which payment tends to overcome.
4. In general, when contractural conditions for use of property are costlier than force, force will be applied and a change in ownership / regime may result.
5. Therefore, in principle, private property results in totalitarianism and war.
Against the definition of private property offered above may be asserted the "gainful use" theory of private property - which may be reduced to the notion that touching something first justifies threat of force against those who might threaten to touch it second. Threat of force against agents with respect to territory remains, preserving the identification of private property with the state.
Murray Rothbard formulated the Non-Aggression Principle as follows:
Quote:No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)
From the definition of private property, we can now see that this fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory is self-negating. Private property consists of threats against others. Without threats, there is no private property.
The upshot is anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is statism, renamed, only shorn of religious encroachments. The situation is made even more unpleasant once we assert our bodies are our private property, but that's a subject for another post.
This post is properly sourced.
