[thatswrong0]

> What is top-down about the abolition of private property and workers owning the means of production?

What isn't? How could you get individuals to give up their property without the use of force, which would most likely come from the state?

[jahaja]

I would say that the enforcement of private property is what requires the top-down approach. Not the abolishment of private property.

e.g: If I would build my house at someones former vast private property (land). The property owner would somehow have to enforce he's or her's private property. Today this is done through the state.

[crusso]

And without the state I couldn't just have a few of my employees or friends burn your house down?

This whole argument of whether property rights or lack of property rights is due to a State is fundamentally misguided. The State is just force, and whether that force creates property rights or destroys common understanding of property rights depends upon how that force is applied.

[jahaja]

Of course. I agree with you, hence the "Today" in the last sentence. Tomorrow it might be other kinds of states or similar entities. The first sentence was however badly formulated.

So it's true that a stateless society would need to defend against groups of thugs or similar just as we do today. This would probably be done in a decentralized manner rather than a paid centralized institution like today. The idea is to build a society that people would want to defend.

So hopefully people would organise against thugs that claim private property rights, or also risk being exposed to them themselves.

[duairc]

You have it completely backwards. Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property.

Let's say you're renting a house from some landlord. You live in this house, so it should be yours, right? The landlord already has another house that they live in. But it's not yours, it's the landlord's. Why is it the landlord's? Because if you stop paying rent, they can kick you out. How? Ultimately, by using the force of the state to remove you. If you get abolish private property (i.e., the state), then there is no “force” that makes the house the landlord's. It simply becomes your house.

Abolishing private property doesn't mean getting individuals to “give up” their property, it means people can no longer use force to claim ownership over that which they do not use.

[anoncowherd]

>> Private property itself can't exist without the use of force and the state. If you abolish the state, you abolish private property.

Really now? If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore?

Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist? Or would everyone perhaps willingly part with all their belongings because they believed their property rights had vanished with the State?

Would you and your friends go rape all the women you could get your hands on, purely because without the State, people would no longer have the right to control their own bodies?

.. See what I'm getting at here? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider who's got it completely backwards?

[hackinthebochs]

Of course not many people will go on a rampage. But the right to life is an entirely different beast than the right to property. It seems obvious to me that private property (the "right" to sole use of property) exists merely by decree of laws and without it, it simply doesn't exist. In the natural state one can only own what they can successfully defend. The concept of private property outsources that defense to the state and thus one ends up capable of accumulating far more property than one could defend in the natural state.

>Without the State, would you and your friends go forcefully take everyone else's (non-)property because property rights would cease to exist

No, but in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property.

[anoncowherd]

>> But the right to life is an entirely different beast than the right to property. It seems obvious to me that private property (the "right" to sole use of property) exists merely by decree of laws and without it, it simply doesn't exist

Do you need a law to tell you you're allowed to defend yourself if someone attacks you? .. Do you not have that "right" by virtue of being a human being?

Are you only allowed to defend your property if there's a government that says you have property rights?

>> in a scenario where a bank was attempting to evict me from my home and I had nowhere else to go, I would defend my claim to said property

Presumably, you'd have voluntarily signed a contract with the bank, and voluntary assumed the risks involved in it, yes? If your contract with the bank says they get your home if you can't pay back your loan, then it's no longer your property after the clause has been triggered.

If you did forcefully defend "your claim to said property" even when it's no longer your property, that would be a job for some kind of "dispute resolution organization".

[hackinthebochs]

The talk of 'rights' are muddying the issue. A 'right' necessarily entails responsibilities onto other entities. These responsibilities must be agreed upon beforehand for a 'right' to be said to exist. I know, it is common for discussions of natural rights as in collective responsibility that exists outside of any agreed upon framework. But careful examination of such a claim reveals it to be impotent. I have no reason to acknowledge your right to the sole use of 1M acres of land unless there was some mutually agreed upon framework beforehand. Once we reach the level of mutual agreement (and some enforcement clause) we have just invented government.

The only 'natural right' I agree with is the right to life and non-interference. Everything else requires an agreed upon framework and thus are purely by decree.

[dragonwriter]

> If the State ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think you and everyone you know would go on a killing spree, because no one would have "the right to live" anymore?

You not having a right to something doesn't mean I don't have better uses for my time and effort than taking it from you.

[anoncowherd]

Government not existing wouldn't mean you don't have rights.

[jahaja]

You're confusing and wildy mixing basic human morality with politically/economically motivated laws.

[anoncowherd]

And he wasn't? :p

To be more accurate, I'm simply pointing out that we all have the exact same rights regardless of what a government does/says, or whether one even exists at all.

Our rights manifest themselves in the way people naturally behave.

[leot]

"... the way people naturally behave."

How is it that people "naturally" behave, exactly? Keep in mind that the way we behave in civilized society is a product of having been raised in civilized society. We have internalized social norms that have been codified into laws, and behave accordingly.

If you look at history, or at any place where the consequences of behavior are removed (e.g. the behavior of people to whom laws don't typically apply), you will find that for the most part, people often behave extremely poorly to each other. Indeed, you'll find that game theory and selfishness best predicts how people treat each other. Law of the jungle, and all that.

[ameister14]

Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example. There are notable exceptions to this but it's really dependent on community norms in those cases.

[anoncowherd]

>> Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example

No one ever asked me, and no one ever asked you either. Is it reasonable to think you've agreed to "give up" some of your rights when no one ever asked you? What about taxes? Can you be considered to have consented to taxation when no one ever asked you, and when you're taxed by force anyway - it's as if no one wanted to be taxed!

Not only that, but can you give up your rights?

Can you give up your right to own property? -How would that work? Would you solemnly swear never to have any belongings anymore? Never to hold anything in your possession? Never to oppose anyone taking something from you?

[jahaja]

Is your point that private-property is in line with how people naturally behave?

I'm not really sure what is meant by rights. It's surely so subjective that it loses it's purpose.

[anoncowherd]

There's no need for a law that says "don't take someone else's stuff" - it's common sense, and everyone intuitively understands that it's forbidden.

If you want an "academic" investigation into this idea, check out "natural rights": http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/four.asp

[icegreentea]

Well, strictly speaking, abolishing the state does not prevent the use of force - it simply removes a single arbitrator of force. If the state were abolished, then the landlord is free to use his own force to attempt to remove you. If this works or not / is a good idea or not for the landlord depends on the situation (ie does he believe that you can come back and retaliate with more force than he himself can muster).

[hkarthik]

yeah we tried that in the middle ages. It was called feudalism :)