struggling with possession based property rights

[Noleaders]

Nothing, but as they aggregate "things for trade" then their "possessions" become "used solely for the purpose of trade," and they don't look like possessions to me. As I said before, if I didn't respect mutualists on grounds that they're "better than capitalists," I would happily take these supposed "mutualists possessions." But because I do respect them, I wouldn't do it.

The point still stands that if I did you would bust me over the head with a stick, just like a fucking capitalist.

I wouldnt consider self defnce to be force, rather the negation of force, and i dont think thats a capitalist act. I think i understand you a little better now though.

I just explained that it is just not. When you have aggregated capital for the purpose of monetary exchange, then you have to use force to keep that capital, even though you are not using it yourself.

You have a store of TVs, are you watching them all at any one time? No. Tucker says you possess the store. I can respect that, OK, you have a store. It would be no different, of course, from a capitalist having the same store full of TVs, except for presumbably the wage and trade relationship that exists.

You have to use force, in your definition, to do almost anything though. You cant keep your house if your not gonna force invaders out of it, but that surely doesnt make it immoral. So why does it apply when its stuff you plan on trading with?

First off, no one wants to use money, they have to use money. People prefer having things for free, as established in the other thread I had with you. This is a fact of nature.

Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to gift to those who use money, the problem is that gifting is not easily done when the force of money is constantly hanging over our heads. It is not in my interests to give things away if I first have to earn money to be able to have access to the resources to give things away.

No one wants to pay, but people do want to sell. This is why there is money. To consider demanding monetary payments force you would have to believe that individual possession is wrong which you dont which is why i think this is a little self contradictory.

Not for the vast majority of indivuduals, it most certainly is not. Money is *required by society* thus people must find a way to *acquire* that money. This is why I am against mutualism or market anarchism as a primary form of societial function, because it does not give me any other choice. If it was a secondary or otherwise marginal form of society, then the mutualists would not be bothering me, because I would be getting the things I want because no one would be stopping me.

But society consists of individuals. If they all happen to want, legitimately, to keep their possessions then there isnt any aggressive force being used, though it is unfortunate that people arent gifting.

This is why I will happily leave mutualists (and even capitalists) alone, and I must make for myself, because I don't need to be seen as an authoritarian, even though it is obviously you who would be the first aggressor if I were to take things from the environment.

You have a pile of scrap metal that is rusting away, if I were to go and grab some of it to make tools, you would stop me with force, because there's an opportunity there for a monetary transaction. "Sure you can have that rusting scrap metal, but only if pay me."

Basically if you were to initiate force i would respond with force, but isnt that whats always going to happen?

You and your friend probably have no problem with it. But what if I wanted something you were not yourself using (except for the explicit purpose to trade), would you let me have it?

No you fucking wouldn't.

Well, using the above example, i worked harded for my scrap metal so yeah im gonna hang onto it. However you can take my unused land, or my abandoned buildings, if you like.

[shawnpwilbur]

You have failed to convince me that non-possession acceptablity would not devolve into institutions of power, all you did is just explain that I am throwing out stereotypes and reiterated the lie that I would expropriate ones pitiful non-possessed property.

Actually, I explained several reasons why, in a mutualist society, the forms of privilege necessary for capitalist accumulation simply wouldn't exist, and how difficult it would be to "corner the market" in anything in a cost-price, occupancy and use society. You shrugged off the specific institutional details, and gave me a combination of "there's one born every minute" and "capitalism rocks, dude!" Neither are actually very convincing, and even together they don't constitute an argument.

Most of the reasons that capitalism has been able to maintain itself have to do with habit, momentum, and the centralized control of media--and thus public "common sense"--by capitalists. But the mindset is no more robust or sustainable than the economics. Spend even a day really observing consumer behavior in a mall or big-box and some of the vulnerabilities ought to be immediately obvious. Look at inventory levels, price, and variety, and at staff levels and morale, and more looming crises appear. When unemployment seemed like a little problem, then very few people cared if a big retail store spent 20-40 (or more) hours of employee wages every day just in credit-card processing, but those convenience-costs look a little different in an economy where more than a quarter of the population (in the US) are jobless, and more than half as significantly underemployed--or they would, if radicals actually paid any attention.

It's entirely characteristic of your approach that you have actually not clarified your own line between "possessed" and "non-possessed" property, beyond hand-waving about "reasonable" time frames, and have ignored or downplayed the actual details of the "summer house" scenario--apparently because you are offended by the very notion of a second property, although I know subsistence farmers with a weekend cabin and people of very modest means whose field, garden or woodlot is not where they sleep. You say I have lied about your claim you would expropriate the winter house, but "your shit goes on the street" seems pretty clear. You made it clear that community property standards, however voluntary and mutual, don't mean shit to you, which may absolve you of aggression in your own mind, but if "one's own mind" is the standard you propose, then, game over, when you bust down the door it's "ok" and when you bust down the wrong door and get shot for it it's "ok." Not a game I'm interested in playing, honestly.

Oh and you dismiss me because of the "TVs growing on trees" statement, when I expressed not one, but two scenarios (both mutualist and communist) where I could get what I wanted without someone stopping me, without someone forcefully preventing me from having access to it.

Yes, well, your scenarios didn't seem to have much to do with the debate, so they're hard to respond to. The problem with your "tvs on trees" argument is that you seem to think it has some bearing on a pre-post-scarcity society. In the whole tv portion of the thread you mixed up real and chattel property, and ignored or mishandled the question of labor's right to its products--presumably by waving away labor with your sci-fi scenario. I agree that greater degrees of real prosperity are possible with less labor input. That's why I have been arguing for a world where everyone has a getaway, or can travel, and can be secure in the enjoyment of that real prosperity, rather than your rather spartan scenario.

Amusing to say the least.

Dude. You're not even amusing. Take a deep breath, get over yourself for a second, and try to see it from my point of view. From the moment I've returned to the forums, you've been on the attack. It's like a complete stranger walked up and started yelling in my face: "I SAID, leave me ALONE!" It's obvious to me that you neither know nor care what position I am actually advancing. You are a self-confessed enemy of market anarchists, and you've shown yourself far too willing to lump widely diverse positions for me to believe you care much what I really have to say. And not caring much about the details means you can get pretty laughably far afield when you generalize.

You come off as dangerously self-absorbed and willfully aggressive. It's that simple. You've got your post-scarcity and your gift-economy, and your philosophy that might be something kind of like egoism, but without either the "own" or a clear sense of the alternatives. And you'll charge at potential allies the moment something, however small, rubs you the wrong way. If that's not really who you are, or how you want to be perceived, try getting serious and straightening up your act.

Or engage in stupid flame wars all your life.

[|Y|]

Noleaders,

So why does it apply when its stuff you plan on trading with?

Because you don't plan on using it? I'm using my house, you're not using the stuff in your store, the only "use" it serves is as a trade mechanism, and then, that trade mechanism is only held up via a social contract that I never agreed to, which is completely backed up by force.

No one wants to pay, but people do want to sell. This is why there is money.

People don't want to sell, again, when they don't have to pay they see no reason to sell or to get in other peoples way.

To consider demanding monetary payments force you would have to believe that individual possession is wrong which you dont which is why i think this is a little self contradictory.

No, I only consider it wrong when it has to do with non-possessive property. You can sell me the hat that you wear, I refuse to buy a hat from a stand that you are selling them at. Huge difference.

If you are using something for the express purpose of an economic transaction, I do not see it as legitimate, and therefore, in an anarchist society, I would refuse to pay for any such "property."

If they all happen to want, legitimately, to keep their possessions then there isnt any aggressive force being used, though it is unfortunate that people arent gifting.

I am content with the mutualist weak position on possession, I merely take it some steps forward, and reject outright possessions that are used solely for the purpose of trade. By making a possession as such, you are taking away its actual utility and removing its use from society by force.

Basically if you were to initiate force i would respond with force, but isnt that whats always going to happen?

I'm taking a pile of scrap metal that's just sitting around and that is me initiating force? The scrap metal doesn't care what I do to it. You're not using it, in this scenario, it's just sitting there.

Well, using the above example, i worked harded for my scrap metal so yeah im gonna hang onto it.

So you basically changed the scenario.

However you can take my unused land, or my abandoned buildings, if you like.

Good, it is unfortunate that you don't see that something in a store that you are trying to sell is also unused by you.

[|Y|]

shawnpwilbur, your reasons for this scenario not devolving into a more authoritarian environment are inadequate. It's one thing to just respond, it's another thing entirely to refute. Relying heavly on community forces requires a mass consciousness that I don't see happening, therefore I see the only way to mitigate authoritarian forces is unconsiously, through the way society operates, with the full and complete rejection of force, because it is seen as an undesirable position to have.

People break copyright all the time, they don't do it because it is some sort of magical radicalization of society, or because they have a mass consciousness to reject copyright, they do it because it is the more beneficial situation than respecting copyright. A good deal of the population still has not recognized this, but it is not a fault of propaganda or education, it is a fault of tools and ready access.

Your position, then, is just as weak as the syndicalists or the communists.

Possessive property is defined by ones possession of the given property. I accept that you can possess a store. However, it is difficult for me to accept that you possess the things in said store, because you are "only" using them for trade. Your possession of the store subverts your non-possession of the things within the store, and I can let it slide.

You say that one can possess a house even when they're not living in it, because they keep the perception of possession in the minds of the community. I throw out a scenario whereby you hire somone to possess a house for you, so that you can rent it out, and benefit yourself in the process, since, after all, you would be "losing money" if you just maintained it, but here's an opportunity instead to get something out of your ownership. You say that it won't work because it would cost more. I don't think that really matters that much. People download music from iTunes at $1 pop, they could get the same music, much easier, for free, if they only knew how. The difference between 'free' and 'not free' is a lot bigger than the difference between 'flat price' and 'a price higher than the flat rate.'

I know of no one who has two houses, except for the various landlords that I have had to endure. The vast majority of people simply don't. Now timeshares, I know dozens of people who have nice luxury timeshares. Having exclusive right to something that you are not possessing undeniably requires that you have externalized forces in place to maintain that right.

Anyway, I wouldn't "expropriate" (actually, emancipate, since you are not using it) your house unless I knew it would be seen as a valid move by the community (indeed, I talked about posting propaganda on street poles). Going from the assumption that people would continue being apathetic, they probably wouldn't even realize until you came back and started to shoot me. I could just as easily claim that I bought the house from you, after all, you aren't there to contest it. Your claim really hinges on the people knowing you personally, and not liking me as much. And given that I have always been the neighborhood "go to guy" I find that highly unlikely. (I lived in a quaint neighborhood in Alabama for several years, and we'd embark on tool borrowing, yard maintainance, etc, all without "reciprocation.")

Anyway, the rest of your wall of text is just pointless insulting, and it's been difficult enough not to insult you back. The question about "getaways" I think is better answered by timeshares where people can be on a continual rate of travel. No "ownership" over these places, just where people can go without having to pay anyone anything, as long as they keep their shit clean when they leave (if as difficult as to taking the bed coverings and tossing them and the towels and whatnot into a laundry chute). Rather than depend upon actually having some "exclusive getaway" which is only held exclusively for only you by some concept of community recognized possession.

Everyone can have their own house, not everyone can have two or three or four. Everyone can have their own house and everyone can share housing for travel, though.

[thelastindividual]

I know of no one who has two houses, except for the various landlords that I have had to endure

I know quite a few actually. My parents to start with (Embarrasingly enough ) and a couple of friends with holiday homes. Two other examples of non-possesive property:
School Lockers
Banks/Storage vaults

In fact I think all property requires some form of authoritarianism. Private (i.e non-possesive) property recquires some kind of defence system to keep people from taking your property while you aren't there (This could be a state or a private police force or just a group of kind locals looking after your stuff for you i.e a community that respect your property ideal) possessive property recquires authoritarian actions on the part of the possessor to prevent someone from taking his/her property from him (Sometimes it even needs a greater level of authoritarianism when someone steals your rightul poseesions. This can take the form of the state or a private police force or again a community who respect your property ideals)

Apologies if you've already counted any of these arguments before but I haven't really been following any of the long-winded arguments until recently

[|Y|]

I bumped my thread awhile ago about it, I think it's entitled "A Short Essay" or something. Basically, it's one thing for one individual to protect their possessions. It's another thing entirely for one individual to need external forces to protect their various non-possessed properties.

It's a slippery slope, because you can argue that a capitalist who owns a car lot and all of the cars on it are his possessions, "If the community recognizes them as such."

It becomes far more arbitrary and allows people to exploit the good will of others.