property is theft

8/14/2019 property is theft

1/11

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. o 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 ustrian 2chool of 3conomics.

i*e most anarchists, I consider +anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron,

as by its very nature capitalism is not anarchic. ncaps 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.


2/11

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, +employ7s 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. *in' by another name ; landlord. &othbard:s next

remar*s hi'hli'ht precisely ho" close the parallel is/

o" "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 +7obviously, in a free society, 2mith has

the ultimate decisionma*in' po"er over his o"n 5ust property, !ones over

his, etc.- In both cases the 'et out clause, the only difference &othbard cancite bet"een the 2tate and private property, is that the latter "as ac%uired

+5ustly.-

2o, "hat ma*es property 5ust? ccordin' 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,


3/11

are properly his. #hatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that ature

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 itdoesn:t sound li*e capitalism. In the above para'raph, "e have an elo%uent

5ustification for "or*ero"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. fter 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 thelord: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 canle'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


4/11


5/11

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 ancaps contend this by definin' coercion as the purely overt threat oruse 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 theirtransaction ; 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.- i*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. ot allheads 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 so property en'enders despotism . . . )hat is so


6/11

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? nd if each proprietor is soverei'n lord "ithin thesphere 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

2tumbleponDi''

&eddit

More

i*e this/

i*e

e the first to li*e this.

eave a &eplyBour email address "ill not be published. &e%uired fields are mar*ed J

ame J

3mail J

#ebsite

Komment

otify me of follo"up comments via email.

otify 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

underclassrisin'.net

ephraiyim on N8E10EN010 at 1H/4O


7/11

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 K:s have a lot of problems to "or* out but I am not sure ifthe 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

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'yeliminatin' the more menial tas*s and the "or*in' "ee* bein' 'reatly

reduced more 'enerally. nd 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


8/11

(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

>3)&32

More...

&3K3) K$MM3)2

)hou'hts on &evoluti< on Kommunism throu'h the eyes of$$# M3 $ )#I))3&

3rror/ Please ma*e sure the )"itter account is public.

)(2

activism anarchafeminism narchism anarchist anarchist communism

narchist >ederation anarchosyndicalism antifascism antifa P

Kapitalism class stru''le class "ar K) direct action 3mma (oldman

e%uality >ascism Imperialism Islam I## libertarian mi*hail ba*unin

militancy ationalism oam Khoms*y Patriotism PK2 Pierre!oseph

Proudhon private property racism revolution revolutionary leadership

&udolph &oc*er selfor'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


10/11

&K=IV32

December N011

!uly N011

May N011pril N011

March N011

>ebruary N011

!anuary N011

December N010

ovember N010

$ctober N0102eptember N010

u'ust N010

!uly N010

!une N010

May N010

pril N010

March N010>ebruary N010

!anuary N010

December N00R

ovember N00R

$ctober N00R

2eptember N00R

u'ust N00R!uly N00R

!une N00R

May N00R

pril N00R

March N00R

&)IK32 B K)3($&B

Vie" >ull 2ite


11/11

Documents

property is theft