Property Feuds

The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. Rothbard also took this stance, and it is the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor?

I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.

The image below was put forth in a debate group, and the discussion became quite contested, even between so-called “right wingers” who say they advocate property, etc., who were using it as a way to prove the free market can properly and efficiently handle environmental issues (which I agree with). I would however argue (as did others in the group) that this is not consistent with Lockean concepts of property, individual property rights, or free market principles.

I find it interesting that this debate is so heated and that people think this is a legitimate claim.

Apparently the logging company “bought” it from the State, who cannot be said to have actually owned 400,000 acres of untouched rainforest, as no labor as been put into it, and the State is a thief to begin with. The logging company surely would own that which is produced afterward, but they do not actually own the rest of the 400,000 acres unless they were actively using it for logging.

To say otherwise would be to say I could stand on the beach and claim the entire coast as mine, and prevent anyone else from stepping foot on it.

Of course everything the state does is funded by stolen money so they can never rightfully own anything, but aside from that, no one actually created any property on these untouched lands.

This is also the reason land can become so expensive. At the risk of being called a communist, there is what can be called an “artificial scarcity” in place in the so-called Market, because the state uses (along with other firms) the threat of force to prevent people from homesteading on what is clearly unowned land. which illegitimately lowers the supply thus raising the price as land is generally highly sought-after.

As I said, this is more of a continuation of feudalism than a conception of Lockean property norms.

By my view this is not at all consistent with free market capitalism or property rights, but it seems that this is one of the main defining characteristics of “capitalism” according to communists.

Redblood Blackflag

Open This Content

You Deserve Nothing But to Be Free

A communist posted the pic on the right in a group.

The things which enable a “comfortable life” (depending on what you mean, most likely) are very often the result of other peoples’ work.

Whether you say “capitalists” or “workers” are responsible for these amenities, if you say you “deserve” a “Comfortable life,” and proceed to name anything beyond picking wild berries or your own vegetables (things you yourself labor to create, etc.), then you are saying you deserve the product of other people’s labor.

This is not revolutionary for anarchists, who long ago came to realize communism is slavery.

You don’t deserve anything anyone else created. If you say you do, you’re advocating slavery.

You don’t deserve anything but to be left alone; to be free.

Communists want to eat your cake and have it, too.


Open This Content

But Who Will Build The Libertarian Society? The Inconsistency of “Immigration Control”

A popular rationalization for “immigration control” is a coupling of the reality that the State currently “taxes” (forces/extorts) people to pay for “welfare,” roadways, etc., and the chance (which proponents claim is fact) that “immigrants” “will vote to take your freedoms away.” This carries the linguistic baggage of layer upon layer of delusion, but in the end it either boils down to the State being rightful owner of all property, or at least acting as if it were, and violently controlling everyone and their property.

They say “you can’t have ‘open borders and a welfare State, because immigrants will come and vote for more welfare, etc.” While this is a possibility– and only a possibility, not a guarantee – it does not justify “immigration control.” Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say, and immigration control, just as “taxation,” is not consistent with liberty, libertarianism, anarchy, etc., period, due to the real-world implications of the enforcement of the concept.

As those who put forth this rationalization incorrectly apply the notion of property rights and ownership to political borders, they end up implying State (or other) control of all property they perceive to be the “country.”

Property changes hands through one of several ways: trade, gift, or theft. This includes housing, real estate, etc.

“Immigration,” more properly migration, is the movement (and generally in these discussions, settlement) of humans from one part of the area, or world, to another. In order to move and then settle, they must have property, and shelter, of some kind, or at least would probably prefer to. This would entail either “rugged” homesteading, or trade/purchase (or theft, but we will assume that is not the case).

In the case of migration you would have one human moving, and seeking to purchase property, such as a home, from another. This entire possibility, at least in theory, is cut off at the “border,” essentially, by an imposing third party, the State, in the same manner a State forces itself into all interactions and transactions, since the “immigrant” is “not allowed” to “enter the country” without “Government” permission, and the house is said to reside “within” or “upon” their “jurisdiction” (property).

There is no fundamental difference in concept or action, and the fact that the State already robs you does not justify or change that “immigration control” is the State simply forcing it’s guns into what would otherwise be voluntary trade.

Clearly if the State has the right to regulate immigration, this implies they are the rightful owners of all property withing or upon the physical geographical location which the State claims is it’s “jurisdiction.” Interestingly, many advocates who espouse this rationalization do not make an ethical or moral argument about it. In fact they will often admit immigration control is illegitimate, but then go on to rationalize and advocate it anyway, as some sort of “pragmatic tactic” based on their worry about “leftist voting immigrants.”

This is, however, a cherry-picking, self-defeating position. An action either violates the non-aggression principle, or does not. To advocate an admittedly illegitimate action in response to another illegitimate action is to compromise one’s self-professed principles is absurd, and to attempt to tie either of them in a context of libertarianism is outright insane.

Those who have realized there is no actual difference between “taxation” and “theft–” that “taxation” does not exist, only theft- can more clearly express their position by removing the political propaganda terms, such as “country,” “immigration,” etc.:

“Some guys are robbing me. Those guys need to keep people who want them to rob me, away from me, by telling them they can’t come around here.”

As usual, when expressed in plain, straightforward English in a manner describing the actual claims or actions, this belief, like all belief in “Government,” is absolutely insane.

Another interesting twist to this belief is that some individuals say they would be fine with “open borders” in “ancapistan,” but not now, with the “welfare state,” and the possibility of increased “taxation.”

If a person is concerned with the possibility of “immigrants” coming “here” and voting for “bigger government,” why would they ever advocate “open / no borders” period? Regardless of the current application of particular State policy, what would stop people from coming “here” and “voting for more government,” or just outright robbing you without pretending to be legitimate?

Anarchy is not a guarantee you won’t get robbed. “Immigration control” is inconsistent with liberty no matter what “world” we “live in,” regardless of one’s assumptions regarding possible future crimes.

Redblood Blackflag

Open This Content

The Mythical Monopoly on Force

A State in theory is, or has, a “monopoly on force,” but it’s more accurate to simply call it a “monopolist,” in that they think and act as if they are a “monopoly on force,” the only ones entitled to enforce rights, but can never actually attain this “monopoly.”

Statism is the idea that there should be only one agency “allowed to do force,” generally “legitimate force,” and/or the State is the only one with the “right to enforce rights,” or to do “legitimate force.” Of course, this is impossible, as everyone obviously has the right to do legitimate force.

In acting as a monopolist, a group claiming to be the State is violating everyone’s rights, by threatening any “vigilantes” enforcing their own rights and contracts, even if they followed all rules of evidence and due process.

Neither does it ever seem to be the case that the State is the only one “doing force,” legitimate or otherwise. The logistics and probability of such a situation are absurd, though I suppose not impossible.

At this point at least, the State clearly has no “monopoly on force.”

More accurately regarding the use of force: the belief is that the State is “Authority,” is speaking for “Authority,” or is wielding “Authority” — that we are morally obligated to obey their commands– and the force they do is legitimate if they say so, because they have the right to rule (authority).

Redblood Blackflag

Open This Content

Authority is a Myth

Badges don’t grant extra rights.

This is the CopBlock slogan, but it’s not just a slogan, it’s the truth of the matter, and essentially the entirety of the (ethical) anarchist argument. The underlying belief is “authority,” that someone has the right to rule you.

Legislation,” etc., is viewed to be inherently legitimate (authority) and obedience a moral duty. This rights issue can be dissected by outright asking the statist if “…law enforcement” have rights which no one else does, and/or if one is morally obligated to obey the law.

Most will immediately say yes, others will perhaps struggle if they are truly open to thinking about it, because that is essentially the belief.

But there is no possible way that police have rights no one else does. Where did they get them? Voting? People gave them rights they don’t even have by voting? This is, in fact, the belief.

Even if one were to say “rights dont exist,” then the state, composed of humans with no rights, cannot create them without magical ink. Political sorcery?

If, however, the agents of the State do not have rights no one else does, then they are not “government/authority,” as this implies they do have rights no one else does, and, for example, a “leo” is not a terrorist/robber/etc. when he forces someone into a cage for growing cannabis, etc., he is “Authority.”

Therefore, “Government” does not exist, as “Government” is only the hallucination that “they” have rights no one else does/ “Authority,” and no one could have possibly given them rights they do not have themselves.

Redblood Blackflag

Open This Content

The True Political “Spectrum”


This pic is not the true political spectrum.

“If you go too far toward liberty, it results in anarchy… mob rule! etc.”

This is the implication one can easily draw from this image, as they have thrown “mob rule” in the same general direction as “liberty” and “anarchy.”

The “political spectrum” as it is commonly understood is false. Politics is fundamentally a dichotomy of “statism/government” and “anarchy/no government.”

Sure, “mob rule” might take place “in anarchy,” but how would it be any different than democracy, or some “totalitarian state” just taking over, i.e. “Government” ?

It just goes to show that this “political spectrum” – which is pretty standard, or at least very closely based on what is generally the standard, makes very little if any sense.

As mentioned, a true schematic of “political philosophies” would be a dichotomy split between “A State” and “No State,” or “authoritarianism” and “liberty” – the two do not “intermingle” or cross-over, they are fundamentally opposed.

It’s not a gradient, these are the only two actually opposing, base positions.

Everything to the “left” of anarchy on this image are fundamentally the same in that the philosophy advocates there be a State.

The purported differences on the “statist” or “authoritarian” side are merely variances in propaganda and state intrusion; all states intrude in “the market” by nature/definition, so all “cross overs” into that realm (statism) are fundamentally the same in that they advocate a violent monopoly forcing itself on everyone else. The other side, “Libertarianism,” (or “Anarchy”), etc., theoretically includes no violent monopolists in “society,”  i.e., no State.

And on top of all (literally, in a graphical/hierarchical sense) of it, would be “Anarchy” – since we always exist in anarchy. This graph actually inadvertently implies that by allocating “mob rule” under “anarchy” – when “mob rule” is the same thing as “democracy,” i.e., “Government.”

We never really “leave” anarchy – states are just a product of superstition: a violent monopolist whose alleged purpose is to prevent at least violence, sometimes also monopoly. They violate anarchist principles, but they do not, in fact, “stop anarchy.” That is, they do not “control society,” there is no telling what people might do.

I also find the placement of the U.S. flag interesting. The U.S. is moderate? Meaning what? Moderate overlord?

Apparently “Moderate” means “half way to totalitarianism!”

It doesn’t make any sense.

Redblood Blackflag

P.S. It would be interesting to me to find out if the person who drew this up was a “libertarian” or “minarchist.” I’d be willing to bet they were, due to their general understanding that “fascism” and “communism” are fundamentally the same. This would make the allocation of “mob rule” in the direction of “liberty” that much more peculiar, since one could assume they had a predilection for liberty.

A few other observations: I find it interesting that even within this pic, the dichotomy I speak of seems to exist, if we assume “libertarian” means there is a so called “limited government,” which I did because of the seemingly negative connation of “mob rule.” I imagine the creator meant this to be the case, and viewed this to be bad. My assumptions may be mistaken, but this has been articulated in debate before.

I would like to note, however, that sometimes “the mob” is right (though never when they are the ones initiating force).

If mob rule has negative connotations, the creator, alongside implying total freedom would mean “bad mob rule,” implies “total freedom” would be bad. Again, my assumptions may be wrong, but this has also been articulate by statists before.

Open This Content