Re: Capitalism, Private Property, etc (was Re: Sweatshops)

Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 17:47:39 MDT

Travas Gunnell, <>, forwards:
> B.3.1 What is the difference between private property
> and possession?
> Anarchists define "private property" (or just
> "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies
> of certain objects or privileges which are used to
> exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is
> ownership of things that are not used to exploit
> others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush,
> etc.).

So what does it mean to exploit others? You give some examples:

> Thus many things can be considered as either
> property or possessions depending on how they are
> used. For example, a house that one lives in is a
> possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at
> a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a
> saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the
> saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at
> wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is
> property.

The common element here is that you have lent or rented out some
possession, for money. Is that the definition of exploiting? To loan
something for money?

A loan is a transfer of property accompanied by a promise to give it back.
A loan for money adds a transfer of money from borrower to lender.
Apparently this is evil. Why?

What about other contractual arrangements? Suppose I give you some object
in exchange for your promise to give me money on a regular, ongoing basis.
This is not a loan because there is no promise to return the object.
Does this make it morally OK? Why or why not?

I'm having trouble understanding the dividing line between which kinds
of freely-chosen, voluntarily-agreed-to arrangements between private
individuals are acceptable in this system and which are not.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:47 MDT