visagrunt wrote:
Oh, will you please just go to law school for four months.
"Ownership," only exists in the law of property. There is no such thing as ownership outside a system of laws.
And you are certainly wrong when you claim that the state doesn't recognize collective ownership. Look up the meaning of joint tenancy--that is the essence of collective ownership. Other examples include partnerships, cooperative corporations and religious communities. Anywhere where a person has a legally enforceable, undivided one-part interest in property, the law has recognized collective ownership.
You seem to believe that "private property" means "property owned by an individual." Your logic is inherently flawed. Private property is all property that is not public property. And public property is limited to that which is owned by the state and by its agencies.
Public ownership is not common ownership, and common ownership is not private ownership. Also, private property is not personal possessions in anarchist theory.
A personal possession is something you occupy and use, like a house or a toothbrush. Anarchist believe the rightful owners of a factory are the people who occupy and use it.
According to the state, everything that is not public property is private property. The state is using flawed binary logic.
I do not believe private property is just property owned by an individual. I believe private property is property owned by an individual that is not attended for his or her own direct personal use, which allows this individual to subordinate and exploit the people who do occupy and use it.
visagrunt wrote:
First, name one--any one--anarchist society that has ever existed after the onset of civilization?
Examples of anarchist civilization:
The Iroquois ConfederacyRevolutionary CataloniaThe Free Territoryvisagrunt wrote:
Second, your anarchist society has just created a state. As soon as you create law, and the law is applied to the members of a society, and that society has a defined territory from which it can effectively exclude others, you have all the hallmarks of a nation state. Your anarchist society has just evolved into what it sought to replace.
Max Weber's definition of a state:
Max Weber wrote:
a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force' in the enforcement of its order.
visagrunt wrote:
You're being tautological. I am thinking in terms of law. There can be no law without a state.
And of course I am thinking of law, because property is a legal concept. It has no meaning outside of law.
Anarchists believe in law derived from consensus-based social contracts.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote:
What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
04 Oct 2013, 1:16 pm
