...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.
lex mercatoria
I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.
Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.
Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria.
From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe.
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.
So, again: property is just a piece of paper.
Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.
And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place.
"Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here.
Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then
you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale.
At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it:
"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."
This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical.
Show Posts
