No.90383
>A man whom it would be forbidden to pass on the highways, to stop in the fields, to shelter in caves, to light a fire, to pick wild berries, to gather herbs and to boil them in a piece of terra-cotta, this man could not live. Thus the land, like water, air, and light, is an object of first necessity, of which everyone must freely use, without harming the enjoyment of others; why is the land appropriate?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Qu'est ce que la propriété?
No.90384
No.90385
What is property? Well, it certainly is not theft.
No.90386
>>90385
Property as a title is a theft to personnal property
No.90387
everything is theft except actual theft lmao
No.90388
>>90387
Ownership of someone else labour or possession is actual theft.
No.90389
>>90383
How can you steal something, that was never used, nor planned to be ever used by anyone else, except the one who combined his labor, with a piece of land?
Ironically, after an individual or group of people makes land more attractive, by building a nice home, or planting crops, or digging and discovering oil/gold reservoirs, do the other people come and demand their "fare" share.
No.90391
>>90389
If you use something it is fairly your possession. But rent, employment and absent ownership are theft.
No.90392
>>90391
OK you dirty hippie, I'll work hard to honor your principles by never hiring you and never renting or selling to you.
No.90393
>>90392
Because your property is illegitimate if it is someone else's work or occupation
No.90394
>>90393
>ask someone to voluntarily do something for me, in exchange they get shekels
>they agree, do the thing, and receive shekels
>this voluntary transaction is theft
At least try to back up what you're saying with an explanation instead of piling one baseless assertion onto another.
No.90395
>>90394
Who is voluntary for you to have property based upon nothing but a title?
No.90396
>>90395
Because I either worked to homestead that property, or I purchased the title from someone who did.
No.90397
>>90396
If you work on a land, it is legitimately your property. If you stop using it, it is not anymore. No reason for your property to last.
No.90398
>>90397
>If you stop using it, it is not anymore.
Support what you say with an argument if you don't want to sound like a retard. If I leave my house for work, does it become unowned until I come back in the evening?
No.90399
>>90398
Your house is your possession, as anyone wants his house to be kept his without the need to rent it.
The reasoning is: how do you legitimate a property you stop using, therefore you don't need?
No.90400
>>90391
I can understand absentee ownership, but with rent and employment you are effectively providing a service that would not have existed if you have not created it.
No.90401
>>90393
>build my house up to include a rental space
>theft
So I should not build up my house? Seems very ineffective use of space if I cannot provide a service to someone.
No.90402
>>90400
what service do you provide by renting? if someone wants a home, he does'nt need to rent, he prefers to own it. Same for employment, you would rather be an independant self-employed worker.
>>90401
The building of the house can itself be a service for a buyer, but rent is not a service, it's just profit over your ownership title.
No.90403
>>90397
Not really. If I did not build or purchase the capital on the property, then it is not my property. Such an idea is akin to parasitism.
No.90404
>>90403
Parasitism? No, people can agree to respect each other's possessions.
No.90405
>>90399
>The reasoning is: how do you legitimate a property you stop using, therefore you don't need?
Who are you to decide what I do and don't "need," you egotistical busybody? You don't "need" a computer. You don't "need" the clothes you're wearing. You don't "need" anything besides water every three days and food every three weeks, yet for some reason, people insist on getting higher quality of life than bare subsistence. Funny how that works.
>>90402
>what service do you provide by renting?
You are allowing someone to make use of your property without going through the trouble of ownership, because they either cannot afford ownership or choose not to go through with it.
> if someone wants a home, he does'nt need to rent, he prefers to own it
Another baseless assertion. There are quite a few people that have the means to own a home rather than rent, but choose not to because renting poses certain advantages–usually the landlord is the one responsible for upkeep of the house, repair of the appliances, and so forth. People who don't want to deal with such things often choose to rent even when the option to buy is available.
>Same for employment, you would rather be an independant self-employed worker.
Again, stop assuming you know what people want. A large number of people prefer the stability and security of a regular salary over the many risks involved in starting your own business.
>>90404
>Parasitism? No, people can agree to respect each other's possessions.
WELL WHICH ONE IS IT?
If you claim no ownership is forfeit because the original owner isn't "using" his property, you're encouraging people not to respect each other's possessions. Pick a damn side, and explain your arguments.
No.90407
>>90404
>what service do you provide by renting?
I provide them shelter for living. Sure people want to own homes, but there is a lot of time and resource investment in it that it might not be financially viable.
>but rent is not a service
it is. See above.
No.90408
>>90383
> In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of our institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion.
In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order—a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom. … In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.
BTFO'd by the man himself.
No.90409
>>90404
IT is parasitic that you claim ownership merely for possession of the capital that some else built or purchased legitimately and still claims it. As soon as you leave your house it is no longer possessed by you no matter how much mental gymnastics you do.
No.90410
>>90405
If I use something for my work or daily life, I need it.
>You are allowing someone to make use of your property without going through the trouble of ownership, because they either cannot afford ownership or choose not to go through with it.
The reason why it's too expensive to own something, is because there are too many rent and not enough sales.
>Another baseless assertion. There are quite a few people that have the means to own a home rather than rent, but choose not to because renting poses certain advantages–usually the landlord is the one responsible for upkeep of the house, repair of the appliances, and so forth. People who don't want to deal with such things often choose to rent even when the option to buy is available.
Cheap owning - expensive rent. Pick one.
>Again, stop assuming you know what people want. A large number of people prefer the stability and security of a regular salary over the many risks involved in starting your own business.
How is that reasonnable and mature? If people choose security over freedom, it does'nt justify the lack of freedom.
>If you claim no ownership is forfeit because the original owner isn't "using" his property, you're encouraging people not to respect each other's possessions. Pick a damn side, and explain your arguments.
If people have houses they use regularly, they can legitimately agree to keep their possessions, how is that contradictory to mutualism? The problem is rent, employment or absentee property, not having a house
No.90411
>>90409
Mutualism is equivalent agreement between people. Agree with your neighbourhood to not occupy someone else's home if you don't want to be occupied yourself
No.90412
>>90411
Good luck agreeing with all the people in at least 10k town, retard.
No.90413
>>90412
Who wants to be occupied? I don't see a reason why to refuse this agreement
No.90414
Mutualism is about fair deals.
>I won't occupy your house while you're out, you won't either
That's a fair deal.
>You are allowed to live in this house but you have to pay me because muh my property
That's not a fair deal
No.90415
>>90414
>fair
I think it's unfair that you are the one who allowed to have a house and use it at all, could you fuck off?
No.90416
No.90417
>>90416
Appeal to fairness is neither
No.90418
okay let me try to put it like this
at the very beginning before I have done anything, I own myself, and nobody else owns me, otherwise I am a slave|
since I own myself I can choose, and one of the things I can choose to do is labor or not labor towards things, this ability to withhold and give labor means I own my labor
since I own my labor it is natural that the fruits of the labor would belong to me, since they do not even exist unless I will them it means they have gone exactly where I want them too just by creating them
since I own the fruits of my labor I may keep, give, use, destroy them as I please, and others may do likewise with the fruits of their own labor
because multiple people may do as they please with the fruits of their labor it opens up a new idea, an agreement that I will give you x for y, trading of the fruits
if any of these things are not true suddenly, then none of them are, meaning if people cannot trade their labor freely they do not own the fruits, if they dont own the fruits then they must not be able to own the labor, if they can be forced to labor they do not own their very own self and are a slave
this is a big long complicated way to say, if you are not allowed to do things that are voluntary, then you have no volition and are a slave
No.90419
>>90418
I agree with you, you own something if it is the fruit of your labor.In a capitalist society, a worker does'nt earn the total fruit of his labor, he is stolen by the employer and shareholders
No.90420
No.90421
>>90419
incorrect
he may labor or not labor as he chooses as long as he is not coerced by force, so if he labors under a salary that is his choice
No.90422
>>90421
Absentee property is a coercition
No.90423
>>90422
You defining what is coercion is coercion
No.90424
>>90410
>The reason why it's too expensive to own something, is because there are too many rent and not enough sales.
Baseless assertion.
>Cheap owning - expensive rent. Pick one.
Except the montly payments on a mortage are usually more expensive than rent. And renters don't have to pay the cost of maintenance either. Baseless assertion.
>How is that reasonnable and mature? If people choose security over freedom, it does'nt justify the lack of freedom.
They're not sacrificing any freedom. Are you "sacrificing" your freedom when you lock your front door? No, because you can always choose to unlock it if you want. Same deal here–anyone who works for a salary can CHOOSE to quit their job and start a business at any time. You're just saying they can't because your fantasy land stops functioning if you assume people have agency.
>That's not a fair deal
If you don't think a deal is "fair," you're under no obligation to participate. By the same token, you have no right to stop other people from making deals just because you personally don't like them.
>>90419
>Labor Theory of Value
Jesus Christ, you are retarded.
>a worker does'nt earn the total fruit of his labor, he is stolen by the employer and shareholders
How is it "stolen" if he's being paid for it? If it is "stealing," why does the worker choose to participate?
>>90422
HOW?
Whom are you coercing, to do what?
No.90425
>>90422
contradicts
>>90419
which also contradicts itself
No.90426
>>90410
>If I use something for my work or daily life, I need it.
Use does not imply need. Nor does the need of something determine that that thing is property.
>The reason why it's too expensive to own something, is because there are too many rent and not enough sales.
It is more complicated than that. You have to look at the demand side (the preference for rentals over ownership) and the supply side (the availability of property on the market).
>Cheap owning - expensive rent. Pick one.
Ownership may not be cheaper than renting is certain locales. Also, there may be a preference to rent rather than own. Ownership entails more liability such as maintenance, while rentals are more flexible, especially if your labor requires routine travel or uncertainty.
>How is that reasonnable and mature? If people choose security over freedom, it does'nt justify the lack of freedom.
It is reasonable to choose security of a guaranteed outcome over the volatility of self-employment, which may prove a failure. Why else do people buy futures and securities? This is not even a freedom issue because the freedom lies in the choice of self-employment or employment by another.
No.90427
>>90411
>Mutualism is equivalent agreement between people.
What if I agree to rent my property to someone else. This is a mutual agreement after all.
No.90428
>>90414
>You are allowed to live in this house but you have to pay me because muh my property
You are forgetting what 'muh property' entails. , such as the investment of capital or improvements on that property.
No.90429
Renting is cheaper than buying because we live in a system where homes are more available to rent, so the one who lease benefits from the poverty of people whom land is stolen by private property. Same for employment. Employment may be voluntary, the condition of the employed in the same place is not.
No.90430
Not if its unused land, or someone who owns a property that voluntarily sells it to you.
No.90431
No.90432
>>90430
Sale is fair, possession goes from a person to another without absentee property
No.90433
>>90427
!the fact that you own a house for lease is unfair for the occupant
No.90434
>>90433
>fairness
spook and a non-argument
No.90435
>>90419
>a worker does'nt earn the total fruit of his labor,
He does in capitalism.
No.90436
>>90434
The principle of mutualism is equality, this is why deals need to be fair.
No.90437
>>90435
As I said, he is stolen by the employer and shareholders who have illegitimate property of what they don't use
No.90438
No.90439
>>90436
>The principle of mutualism is equality
Isn't the principle of MUTUALism mutuality?
No.90440
No.90441
>>90440
not really, commie
No.90442
>>90437
How is it illegitimate? If the shareholders/employer do not provide the capital required for that labor to be productive, nothing gets produced. They are using said property because they direct the production and investment.
No.90443
>>90442
You don't need hierarchy to work. Auto entrepreneurship works, workers can direct their own production
No.90444
>>90441
Proudhon is not a communist, acknowledge please
No.90445
I bet this bastard lives in his mother's basement using a computer that he brought with his salary.
Isn't owning something makes you a thief? You hypocrite thief
No.90446
No.90447
>>90443
>You don't need hierarchy to work
You do. You do not acquire work experience and knowledge just by yourself. You acquire it under the direction of a teacher, artisan, etc.
>workers can direct their own production
True, if they acquire the property, the supply of capital, and the experience/skills to direct it. But this does not contradict capitalism. And many people do not want to do this because of income instability and risk.
No.90448
>>90447
Capitalism currency is a coercicion to auto-entrepreneurship and workers cooperative.
No.90449
>>90448
>Capitalism currency
What does this term mean?
No.90450
>>90448
you dont even need currency for capitalism, it works just fine on pure barter
currency is far more convienient
No.90451
>>90444
Proudhon also said >>90408 acnowledge that, commie
No.90452
>>90449
Competition of auto-entrepreneurs and worker cooperative against exploitative companies is coercitive
No.90453
>>90451
I was aware he thinks possession is different of property
No.90454
>>90453
I'll read it for you, communist trash
>To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.
Now fuck off
No.90455
>>90452
How is competition corrective? If anything it facilitates the efficient allocation of resources, so more demand is satisfied given a limited resources. Also, how are workers "exploited"?
No.90456
>>90455
Ancaps think employment is not exploitation. From an other point of view, it is because in ancapistan some people have more access to property than others because of probate duty, lasting property, first occupation.. etc. so the poor will have no more choice than to pay rent or to be under the authority of a boss
No.90457
Funny how he stops addressing points he cannot refute and starts whining with "exploitation" "coercion" and "fairness".
No.90458
>>90457
Because mutualism is fair and implies no coercicion nor exploitation
No.90459
>>90458
>mutualism is fair
Mutualism is mutual, fairness is not an option, commie
>no coercicion
good luck prohibiting people renting things without coercion
>exploitation
you are free not to be exploited, you just don't eat and all your problems are solved
No.90461
>>90459
prohibiting people from occupying an unused land is coercicion cf. OP
No.90462
>>90460
Then wouldn't you mind if i occupy your home while you are away? You aren't using it and protecting it would be coercion and exploitation of land.
No.90463
>>90462
Already answered that.
No.90464
>>90463
muh agreement works on renting just as well, try again
No.90465
>>90464
Renting is not equivalent agreement
No.90466
>>90465
And why agreement has to be equivalent? It's either consensual or it is not an agreement.
No.90467
>>90461
>prohibiting people from occupying an unused land
Occupying land that I developed is coercion.
No.90468
>>90466
Because mutualism works with equal, fair market. Using a title of property in a deal is not reciprocal
No.90470
>>90467
If you pose as a landlord, it is coercicion
No.90471
>>90468
>equal, fair market
And you again start with muh fairness. You know, forcing your subjective standards of value onto others does not fit well with mutuality, so you are just a retarded commie who wants to call it "market".
Now fuck off >>>/leftypol/
No.90472
>>90468
>Using a title of property in a deal is not reciprocal
You can ask both contractors whether they agree on the deal or not. If they do agree, it's you who are the dumb fuck who coerces them to act as you like.
No.90473
>>90472
Private property is coercitive. Read OP
No.90474
>>90473
>read OP
Read Confessions d'un revolutionnaire retard, he literally says fuck commies i did it to gain attention. You have already been pointed out that you dumb fuck.
No.90475
>>90470
Stating that one is a landlord is not coercion.
No.90476
>>90429
This ALL depends on where you live, see these statistics for PROOF: >>>/prepare/40 (most threads locked to prevent spamming and bot abuse, one open for posting tips or comments)
No.90477
>>90474
I never said I was a commie
No.90478
>>90477
You've shown it a lot better than you could ever tell. >>>/leftypol/
No.90479
>>90402
I wonder, if you have any problems with the concept of hotels, especially on beaches or mountains. If I go to the beach, and have no relatives there(maybe I am going to a different country this year), and I want to stay for more than a day, where should I stay? Should I buy a house, and then after a week or so, sell it? Should I try and find an unoccupied house, that surely will have they keys inside of it, and I will have to clean it, maybe even refurbish it, since it might not have been used for more than a few years? Should I also go and buy cable, internet, water and electricity for a week, and they might not even be available for a few days? Or should I come with a trolley or sleep in the car? Or wouldn't it be better, for some at least, to just go to a hotel, have a nice bed, TV, bathroom, a lady to clean it every day as I am on the beach/mountains, and I just pay the "rent", and after a week go to my house, which hopefully hasn't been occupied by someone else, in my absentee.
No.90480
>>90478
Communism is Kropotkin, I support free market anti-capitalism as Proudhon does
No.90481
>>90479
Hotels can exist in anmutistan, if a cooperative of workers supplies room services. You don't pay a rent, but services
No.90482
>>90480
>Proudhon does
Except he's not. You have already been pointed that out and you ignored it. You do not support free market, even if you pretend that you're not an ancom now.
No.90483
>>90482
Anti-capitalism can imply free market of cooperatives of workers and auto-entrepreneurship
No.90484
>>90483
>free market of cooperatives of workers
You mean "controlled market limited by my dumb restrictions on what people can and cannot do with their property"?
No.90485
>>90484
Is being against government a restriction? Being against capitalism is'nt either
No.90486
>>90481
>You don't pay a rent, but services
Ok, and I presume that some of the money I am paying to the cooperative, isn't just for cleaning the room, paying the electricity bills, and the food, but also for investment in the hotel. Maybe add a new entertainment room(let's say a bowling alley or arcade room), maybe add a new swimming pool, things that might take more than a year, or just to pay for the inevitable costs or refurbishing the hotel, every decade or so, with new furniture, new electronics, maybe the walls need re-painting. So even though, in that one week, you don't see the benefits of these costs, you would still have to pay for them. Am I right? And if yes, are these still services?
No.90487
>>90485
>capitalism=government
so you actually are a retarded ancom
No.90488
>>90487
>Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
I believe in personal property
No.90489
>>90488
>ancom=commie
try again
No.90490
No.90491
>>90485
Forbidding people from renting out capital or improvements on land that they themselves bought or built does not make a free market. Such restrictions require a state.
No.90492
Nothing else to see here guys, it's just a commie shitposting. It was a bit fun and boosted board activity for a while though.
No.90493
>>90388
unless you aquire said ownership with their consent. Then, it's called a gift or deal.
No.90532
>>90387
This is the only logical conclusion of the Proudhonian doctrine.
>[I]f a person did not acquire the right of exclusive control over such goods by homesteading . . . but instead late-comers were assumed to have ownership claims to things, then literally ``no one would be allowed to do anything with anything`` unless he had the prior consent of all late-comers.
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic
No.90541
Daily reminder that socialists and leftistarians are like 2 embers in an oven.