Re: Property

Dan Fabulich (
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:25:43 -0500

Samael wrote:

>So if you pick up my book, it belongs to you? It's impossible to lend
>things to people? Really? IOs that actually what you are trying to say?
>Because I think that _that_) attitude will probably put off most people on
>this group.

OK, dude. It's time to clear up some loose rhetoric here.

Either you're advocating a return to the communist state of nature or you're not. There are several problems with the communist state of nature: first, it never existed. Second, it only works (if at all) in small groups, and even there with suboptimal efficiency. Finally, and most importantly, if we tried to make it exist, you'd run into the problem about restrictions on use I mentioned in an earlier post. ("Suppose Alice and Bob are in a two person communist society...")

If you're NOT proposing anarcho-communism, then I expect that you also intend to create restrictions on the use of goods. Unless these restrictions are by unanimous consent, this is the definition of property. Government by unanimous consent is simply the communist state of nature (with all of its problems). Government by any other means is property-related. State owned property, in your case. And if property is theft...

So, either you advocate state property rights, in which case you contradict your statement that property is theft, or you don't, in which case you contradict your statement that you aren't endorsing communism.

You can't have it both ways.