Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[log]

I am talking about the very conception of private property - which is monopolizing control of resources by issuing threats against others to control their behavior.  But this is another way of saying "threaten others to make them do what you want."

It leads to bad things, and foreseeably so.

If you have an alternative, I'd like to hear it.

I don't see how what you're saying could apply to the very conception of private property though. Without the state to act in favor of the majority, like in an anarcho-capitalist system where everything is privatized and the wealthiest would control the resources, then yeah. But if I own a home in a nice suburban town, in what way am I threatening others to control their behavior? Give me an example. Not an ideological one, but a real-world example of these sorts of threats that results from private property, say, in the United States today

How do you own anything except you view yourself as being "right" in threatening people, and ultimately executing your threats, to control their behavior on or towards what you call your property?  That is an implicit threat against all others.

And have you never rented, and had the landlord change your lease terms arbitrarily?  And if you "own" a house, aren't you paying rent to the real owner, the state you live in, or the USFEDGOV?  And aren't they changing the terms and conditions of you rental by passing laws?

Same thing.

---

Threats or actual execution of violence.  People typically find threats to be lower cost than actual violence and will generally try them first.
With respect to your second, I submit that the social order implied here is kinda nasty.  Better hope one is on everyone's good side, right?

People generally find ownership to be lower cost than threats -or- violence......hence the value of property rights in conflict avoidance.  I risk less by buying a candy bar than I do by scaring someone into giving me one, or engaging in theft.

Those with no property rights must resort to theft and violence by default.

Or begging.  Economic exchange is when the parties agree, implicitly or explicitly, depending on the perceived damage should one party default, to not exercise their threat to kill the other for taking their stuff only so long as the other gives the agreed upon stuff in exchange.

---

Does atheism have an alternative foundation for social order to appeal to in order to solve the obvious society-negating consequences of private property?

If not, that is a good reason to look elsewhere than atheism for a solution to the collapse of society into totalitarianism and war.

Haven't all major communist regimes been "officially" atheist?

Besides, I don't look for atheism for any solutions. And, uh, I think Christianity has been used to justify totalitarianism and war several times over.

Yes.  Oddly, though, never by citing Christ's actual teachings.  They seem remarkably resistant to such efforts.