An article worth reading

[Noleaders]

But what we have retains enduring value from the fact that, of all the host of Lockean natural rights theorists, Lysander Spooner was the only one to push the theory to its logical - and infinitely radical - conclusion: individualist anarchism.

[|Y|]

Whoever wrote that "note "is a liar. Read the actual treaties. Find me anything resembling "Lockean property rights" outside of the "note."

[Noleaders]

On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as injustice. If there be no such natural principle as honesty, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such.

Chapter 2, section 5.

[|Y|]

He is talking about possessive property.

[Noleaders]

Really? Cos ive heard from many sources that spooner was a lockean, and they werent right wing sources trying to steal individualist anarchism for themselves either.

[|Y|]

Then it should be realtively easy for you to find the quotes in that text which discuss the evils of law. I would be interested to see how you can have Lockean property without law.

[Noleaders]

I dont think he was anti-law, it is a book called natural law after all.

but here's how it would work.

Although it is the right of anybody and everybody - and any one man or set of men, no less than another - to repel injustice, and compel justice, for themselves, and for all who may be wronged, yet to avoid the errors that are liable to result from haste and passion, and that everybody, who desires it may rest secure in the assurance of protection, without a resort to force, it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrongdoers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings, which, in the trial of causes, should secure caution, deliberation, thorough investigation, and, as far as possible, freedom from every influence but the simple desire to do justice.

Yet such associations can be rightful and desirable only in so far as they are purely voluntary. No man can rightfully be coerced into joining one, or supporting one against his will. His own interest, his own judgment, and his own conscience alone must determine whether he will join this association, or that; or whether he will join any. If he chooses to depend, for the protection of his own rights, solely upon himself, and upon such voluntary assistance as other persons may freely offer to him when the necessity for it arises, he has a perfect right to do so. And this course would be a reasonably safe one for him to follow, so long as he himself should manifest the ordinary readiness of mankind, in like cases, to go to the assistance and defense of injured persons; and should also himself "live honestly, hurt no one, and give to every one his due." For such a man is reasonably sure of always having friends and defenders enough in case of need, whether he shall have joined any association, or not.

Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate.

An association for mutual protection against injustice is like an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. And there is no more right or reason in compelling any man to join or support one of these associations, against his will, his judgment, or his conscience, than there is in compelling him to join or support any other, whose benefits (if it offer any) he does not want, or whose purposes or methods he does not approve.

[|Y|]

No where does that suggest support of Lockean property rights.

[Noleaders]

No, but you werent asking for support of lockean property rights. You were asking how they could be protected without a state. The mutual defence associations would protect their members lockean property.

[Francois Tremblay]

But they could equally protect possession rights.

[|Y|]

No, but you werent asking for support of lockean property rights. You were asking how they could be protected without a state. The mutual defence associations would protect their members lockean property.

Not without creating a state, dude.

[thelastindividual]

I don't see how it is possible to be an anarchist who supports lockean property since lockean property is primarily a system of control

[Noleaders]

But they could equally protect possession rights.

Of course they could

Not without creating a state, dude.

In what sense of the word?

I don't see how it is possible to be an anarchist who supports lockean property since lockean property is primarily a system of control

If you believe in lockean property rights then it isnt, its just the fruit of your labour that your entitled to.

[thelastindividual]

If you believe in lockean property rights then it isnt, its just the fruit of your labour that your entitled to.

Locke was a terrible philosopher. Jean-Jacques Rosseau on the other hand

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

If we start fencing off land(which lockean property allows us to do) we'll end up right back where we are now

[Noleaders]

Rosseau was blinded by his concept of the general will, a concept that easily falls apart on close inspection, and it really shows in that quote.

fruits of the earth belong to us all

Why do they? Does this mean i can walk into people's houses and take stuff, it does belong to me afterall. Common ownership of everything fails to solve the problem of who gets to use what so always requires something governing its use, in this case "the general will", which means that common ownership will be nominal and actual control will be given to a few people. Not only does that then negate the "common" part but it creates a separation of ownership from control negating the "property" part and granting plausible deniability for those in power.

and the earth itself to nobody

Well "nobody" isn't a conscious being so cant own anything. Since the earth belongs to no one anyone can take it, or part of it, for themselves because there is no theft involved. If the argument is no one should be allowed to own parts of the earth then it still encounters the problem of separation of ownership from control because we do use the earth.

If we start fencing off land(which lockean property allows us to do) we'll end up right back where we are now

Not neccessarily, i think even applying a strict lockean standard of land ownership would have some rather radical effects. For one thing we would have to give most of american back to native americans, most of england to the decendants of peasants and the latifundia in places such as south america would fall apart. Whether we would end up where we are now is a question of how do people gain such large amounts of land in the first place, which historically has been through the state, and at what point to diseconomies of scale catch up to economies of scale.