A nuanced approach to the revolutionary redistribution of property
I’ve been thinking about how to distill some things about Rothbardian property theory, in the context of our existing state capitalist milieu, down to a single talking point. Let me bounce something off of you, the reader. Please leave comments. You can, of course, disagree with the point being made — but I’m principally interested in hearing from others that share my view because I want feedback on how well the following slogan or talking point expresses it.
Not all property is theft, but a lot of it is fraud.
Yes, I’m intentionally referring to Proudhon above.
Reference: Confiscation and the Homestead Principle by Murray Rothbard
Note carefully that Rothbard wonders in the article about top-down state policy approaches to implementation of his property ethics, but he is also not opposed to bottom-up approaches.
Konkin’s anti-political and revolutionary agorism puts Rothbardian property ethics in a very different context from a dry “classical Rothbardian” state policy discussion. That context is the potential revolutionary emergence of arbitration and security as contractually-provided services provided by competing providers emerging from the underground economy rather than the state-allied corporate economy. The shift this move from anarcho-capitalism to agorism results in (and which many libertarians initially miss) boils down to this — recognition that many “rightful owners” of whatever are no such thing at all. Much of what would be authentic, virtuous and non-corrupt “privatization” from a radical libertarian perspective is what the “lawful authorities” (there’s an oxymoron for you) would call theft.
Share This
How is it that within a couple hours of each other, both you and I decided to write about the same Rothbard article? I refer to this post of mine: http://thusspokebelinsky.blogspot.com/2008/06/murray-rothbard-supports-state.html
Now, as for your slogan. Do you agree with Rothbardian property theory and the homestead principle? If so, then I won’t comment, because I believe in Tuckerite occupancy and use-based property rights.
I think that one line puts it pretty succinctly, Brad. It spells out the premise of a thesis and discussion quite clearly.
In keeping with the reference to Proudhon, may I suggest coupling your one-liner with another one-liner?
“And not all property is freedom, because so much of it is subject to expropriation.”
Or some such variation that may be a little less clumsy than my own suggestion. I realize this defeats the idea of distilling things down to a single talking point, but, depending on whom you’re engaging, it may crystallize even more how much property is both directly and indirectly monopolized by statist means for the benefit of a privileged group of parasites.
Well, if you’re looking for another party to confirm your hunch that this is a great line, I’m happy to provide confirmation. Not only did you nail it, but I think this line is going in the random quotes I display on my blog. Well said!
It actually sounds a lot like that old Karl Hess line:
Those last two sentences mirror your saying almost precisely.
belinsky,
I actually wrote one too on my blog, but I have it scheduled for publication on Saturday. So there are at least three of us.
To be more specific, all statist property is fraud. The rest is almost all legitimate. Of course, the State encompasses a great number of areas of society.
You could say that since all nominal property owners pay income property taxes, no one really owns anything in a meaningful sense. We all just have a perpetually-tranferable lease that gets revoked if we stop making payments to the the Great Big Feudal Landlord in the sky, as long as we’re living within the borders of his property.
That’s what I meant, yes.
Well, I went ahead and stole your idea Brad.
However, I’m open to many different edits to the as of now finished copy.
You can reach it here.
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IKJPSFrr7qA1KRxLP3to0bkX5sHTH442RWzN4aavGJYxdrCOUm67c8YdRPAtXTfOjz_kzXCsd8e8A3m9fiHP9N5Q1aF4VtxvExmtdA/RevolutionaryRedistribution.pdf
I think there’s a lot to be done with it, but it’s a start.