Re:YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer...
by yellowapple on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @01:26AM
(#23686848)
> I don't follow this at all, but I'm willing to listen? How does private property require any more force to uphold compared to any other possible system?
Property (and we're mostly talking in the context of "real" property - i.e. land and maybe structures/improvements - since that's what's typically most scarce/valuable in a society given the fixed supply, though some resources like water might be subject to similar discussions for similar reasons) has two states: "owned" and "not owned". Asserting ownership inherently requires force. Not asserting ownership requires no force at all.
Typically, in an implementation of absolute anarchy, there would be no ownership of property beyond, at most, two categories:
1. Property which you individually (plus perhaps your family) are actively occupying/improving/using and can prevent use by others
2. Property which you and other people interested in occupying/improving/using that property (a.k.a. a "community") can cooperatively do so
Category #1 is a difficult proposition in a stateless society, since it definitionally means that your occupation is at the exclusion of a broader community. All but the absolute smallest of "communities" (if you could call them that) would likely outnumber you. You could probably recruit other community members to your cause, but - definitionally speaking - if you're able to get enough people on your side to avoid being outnumbered, then congrats, your property is probably in Category #2 and collectively-used.
You're right that private property and community property require an equal amount of force to uphold, but the thing is that per person community property requires less force per occupant. Thus, unless you've got a force multiplier that's unavailable to the broader community, you're gonna have a pretty hard time asserting "private" ownership of anything that the broader community claims to "own".
Property (and we're mostly talking in the context of "real" property - i.e. land and maybe structures/improvements - since that's what's typically most scarce/valuable in a society given the fixed supply, though some resources like water might be subject to similar discussions for similar reasons) has two states: "owned" and "not owned". Asserting ownership inherently requires force. Not asserting ownership requires no force at all.
Typically, in an implementation of absolute anarchy, there would be no ownership of property beyond, at most, two categories:
1. Property which you individually (plus perhaps your family) are actively occupying/improving/using and can prevent use by others
2. Property which you and other people interested in occupying/improving/using that property (a.k.a. a "community") can cooperatively do so
Category #1 is a difficult proposition in a stateless society, since it definitionally means that your occupation is at the exclusion of a broader community. All but the absolute smallest of "communities" (if you could call them that) would likely outnumber you. You could probably recruit other community members to your cause, but - definitionally speaking - if you're able to get enough people on your side to avoid being outnumbered, then congrats, your property is probably in Category #2 and collectively-used.
You're right that private property and community property require an equal amount of force to uphold, but the thing is that per person community property requires less force per occupant. Thus, unless you've got a force multiplier that's unavailable to the broader community, you're gonna have a pretty hard time asserting "private" ownership of anything that the broader community claims to "own".