just property acquisition and the NAP
Jul 7, 2014 20:23:28 GMT
spiritualpony and anarckissedmind like this
Post by emberobin on Jul 7, 2014 20:23:28 GMT
Let’s talk about why ancoms tend to reject the NAP. I don’t hit you; you don’t hit me. I don’t steal from you; you don’t steal from me. I don’t drop bombs on you; you don’t drop bombs on me. It’s a good idea that is by no means unique to ancaps. You might hear an ancom advocate the same principle with phrasing like ‘My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins’. Most of us don’t reject the principle itself. What ancoms have a problem with is the way in which ancaps apply this principle and use it to justify the antagonistic hoarding of land and other resources.
One of the most fundamental differences between ancaps and social anarchists is our understanding of just property acquisition. In fact, almost all of the arguments I’ve observed between advocates of each stem from this one issue. Ancaps, in my experience, argue that building a fence around or erecting signposts along the perimeter of a large area of land (larger than they can personally use) legitimately converts that land to personal property. Furthermore, they seem to believe that it is a natural right to own more land and resources than they can personally use and to defend that property with physical force.
Social anarchists, on the other hand, argue that property is justly acquired through habitation or through the mixing of land with labour and justly maintained by continued occupancy and direct use. (Note that occupancy and use is a general rule and not something to be applied strictly. For instance, if you left your house to go on vacation, a social anarchist would not break in and use force to prevent you from entering your house upon return. If, however, you abandoned your house for 10 years and did not tell anyone when, if ever, you would be back, and the house started to fall apart, many social anarchists would argue that a person would be justified in moving in and making repairs so that the structure doesn’t go to waste.) Social anarchists believe that anyone who wants to mix their labour with land in order to support themselves should be able to do so to the extent that they’re not interfering with others’ right to do the same. We believe that the primary reason people want to own more than they can personally use is so that they can use their privilege of land-ownership to compel newcomers to geographical regions wherein all land has been claimed as property to pay them ‘restitution’ for the use of natural resources. We see this as exploitation in that land-owners are exploiting the fact that non-land-owners do not have access to land (under the capitalists’ system of property) to compel them to pay restitution.
Since ancoms do not recognise the legitimacy of acquiring land simply by saying ‘This is my land’ and marking the perimeter, we interpret hoarding more land than can be used as an act of aggression. If you claim 100 acres as your property but are are only making direct use of 10 acres, I might come along and put some of that unused land to use in order to generate sustenance for myself and my family. Since we are not in agreement that the unused land is legitimately yours, and since there is no natural hierarchy of opinion, it cannot be reasonably argued that I am committing an act of theft. I am simply using land that no one else was using to support myself and my family without harming anyone. For you to reasonably claim that the land that I am using is actually yours and that I owe you restitution, you would have to objectively prove that your right to own more than you can use should take precedence over my right to use land that nobody else is using, which is impossible. Therefore, what ancaps understand as using defensive force to protect their property, ancoms interpret as a greedy, entitled person initiating violence against peaceful persons to prevent them from accessing natural resources and thus profit from the victim’s lack of access.
Unless and until ancaps agree not to hoard antagonistically and to leave enough resources for others to use (i.e. your right to own more than you can use ends where others’ right to live comfortably begins), we will not be able to peacefully co-exist in a large-scale voluntaryist society, because ancoms will not recognise your right to hoard more than you can use at our expense. If we happen across some unused land and we want to use it, we will do so with or without your permission. If you use violence to defend what you believe is rightfully yours, we will not hesitate to use violence to defend our right to be alive without paying you.
One of the most fundamental differences between ancaps and social anarchists is our understanding of just property acquisition. In fact, almost all of the arguments I’ve observed between advocates of each stem from this one issue. Ancaps, in my experience, argue that building a fence around or erecting signposts along the perimeter of a large area of land (larger than they can personally use) legitimately converts that land to personal property. Furthermore, they seem to believe that it is a natural right to own more land and resources than they can personally use and to defend that property with physical force.
Social anarchists, on the other hand, argue that property is justly acquired through habitation or through the mixing of land with labour and justly maintained by continued occupancy and direct use. (Note that occupancy and use is a general rule and not something to be applied strictly. For instance, if you left your house to go on vacation, a social anarchist would not break in and use force to prevent you from entering your house upon return. If, however, you abandoned your house for 10 years and did not tell anyone when, if ever, you would be back, and the house started to fall apart, many social anarchists would argue that a person would be justified in moving in and making repairs so that the structure doesn’t go to waste.) Social anarchists believe that anyone who wants to mix their labour with land in order to support themselves should be able to do so to the extent that they’re not interfering with others’ right to do the same. We believe that the primary reason people want to own more than they can personally use is so that they can use their privilege of land-ownership to compel newcomers to geographical regions wherein all land has been claimed as property to pay them ‘restitution’ for the use of natural resources. We see this as exploitation in that land-owners are exploiting the fact that non-land-owners do not have access to land (under the capitalists’ system of property) to compel them to pay restitution.
Since ancoms do not recognise the legitimacy of acquiring land simply by saying ‘This is my land’ and marking the perimeter, we interpret hoarding more land than can be used as an act of aggression. If you claim 100 acres as your property but are are only making direct use of 10 acres, I might come along and put some of that unused land to use in order to generate sustenance for myself and my family. Since we are not in agreement that the unused land is legitimately yours, and since there is no natural hierarchy of opinion, it cannot be reasonably argued that I am committing an act of theft. I am simply using land that no one else was using to support myself and my family without harming anyone. For you to reasonably claim that the land that I am using is actually yours and that I owe you restitution, you would have to objectively prove that your right to own more than you can use should take precedence over my right to use land that nobody else is using, which is impossible. Therefore, what ancaps understand as using defensive force to protect their property, ancoms interpret as a greedy, entitled person initiating violence against peaceful persons to prevent them from accessing natural resources and thus profit from the victim’s lack of access.
Unless and until ancaps agree not to hoard antagonistically and to leave enough resources for others to use (i.e. your right to own more than you can use ends where others’ right to live comfortably begins), we will not be able to peacefully co-exist in a large-scale voluntaryist society, because ancoms will not recognise your right to hoard more than you can use at our expense. If we happen across some unused land and we want to use it, we will do so with or without your permission. If you use violence to defend what you believe is rightfully yours, we will not hesitate to use violence to defend our right to be alive without paying you.
