Watch out for self-appointed saviors attempting to make everything “fair.” They’ll send you to hell.
I’ve been in the midst of a little debate here on the platform recently regarding the nature of property.
A fellow Steemian has asserted to me that there must be a “balance” when it comes to property. The reason being that mega-rich and powerful corporations tend to take over the world and its resources, denying them to individuals truly in need. This is an accurate assessment of some corporations, but it’s incomplete. My fellow Steemian/opponent in debate says:
for example, Nestle (Nest Slay) attempting to literally enslave the the earth under the guise of being some kind of benevolant father figure - simply through operations of commerce and enforcement of private property.
To which I replied:
Nestle enjoys a monopoly based on leveraging state violence. Property is not the problem. The initiation of force to maintain “ownership” of illegitimately acquired property (according to natural law/individual self-ownership) is.
Property really isn’t that subjective, according to natural law.
Furthermore my fellow Steemian says:
balance, by definition cannot be dangerous...if you really think about my definition, it is literally saying that real balance means that everyone has their real needs met and is not being overpowered. Nestle, for an example, does not have a REAL need to own and control ALL the water - yet they try anyway - and if they do then that is not balanced.
To which I yet again replied
Property is clear cut. It is an objective, immutable reality that each individual has self-ownership (nature conferred) of their body. This then is the basis for determining what is and is not property, and not just someone’s conception of “fair” or what is a “real need” or not. Homesteading, acquiring as a gift, inheriting, etc, are all ways by which an individual can own property non-coercively absent the state’s brutal apparatus.
And you’re wrong about balance. It can be extremely dangerous when attempting to dilute what is right, and make arbitrary decisions about the natural rights of each individual.
The biggest red flag, however, was this:
A couple things to notice:
My fellow Steemian here is evolving society’s understanding (“society” can understand nothing, as it is an abstract concept—only individuals can understand things) and also is never wrong on this issue! Wow. Anytime dissent or offense of any kind is encountered it is merely because the other party misunderstands him. How convenient.
Some folks may say I am reading too far into this, or pushing the issue beyond what is necessary, but I am telling you, anytime someone attempts to set themselves up as some sort of helper of “society at large” for the “greater good,” and maintains that property is only really a “subjective idea” which must be “balanced”—watch out.
Consent does not involve “balance” in this sense!
My ownership of the gold coin in my wallet has no such “balance” to it. It is mine, objectively. The end. Someone else may really need it, and I may freely decide to give it to them, or not. It is for me and not some external arbiter of “fairness” to decide.
Whether here on Steemit, or in your real life relationships, these approaches to the topic of what is proper always result in top-down control. Who is at the top? The messiah, of course, deciding for you what your “real needs” are and are not.
So yeah, how do we stop abuses from happening such as the ones occurring at the hands of Nestle? Easy. Abolish and eliminate the means by which these entities achieve violent coercion. The state.
I’m not saying my “opponent” here has malicious intent. Just pointing out that “fairness” must never be the mere opinion of one man. That certainly results—and has resulted time and time again—in hell on earth.
Google “voluntaryism”!
~KafkA
Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)
I read your post. I think i can see where you are cominh from. Perhaps the bigger issue is "we" trybto have conversations about serious ideas over the internet and not face to face. Much like the idea that friends on FB are actually friends. How can we have honest conversation when there is no sense of humanity. It is just perspective dualing perspective like robot boxing, and not like people talking.....just an idea.😁
I agree with you 100%, though I feel that these things can be discussed in a way that validates human dignity online.
Your observation is exactly why I have stopped engaging on Facebook as of late.
That human factor is the single most important thing. In a word, the desire to understand.
You hit the nail the head when stating that the corporations can only take with the acquiesense of the state. Corrupt politicians help to create the oligarchy's that seek to control natural resources. Without govt this wouldn't happen.
As far as your debate with the other Steemian goes my feelings are thus.....
Do-gooders rarely do good.
It's taken me a long time to get wise to this... But yeah.
Good post. I've been moving in much a similar direction with my thinking, and am of the view that the only balance is that of freedom and responsibility between individuals. The least flawed groups are those that correspond the most with this principle, and corporatism makes a mockery of such a correspondence.
I always tend to get a little hesitant when someone starts telling me they "know" something that can be applied globally. Especially applies to "experts."
I'm by no means an expert on anarchy, but it seems to me that a lot of misunderstandings happen when people assume (or jump to the conclusion) that "consensus" is the same thing as "balance."
I agree. I am most trusting of those just doing their own thing in their own little part of the world. That is what, in my opinion, truly changes things globally.
Funny how that works... you generally get more "movement" from individuals than from large group movements.
Definitely.
The more we look at the ways people see things the better we are at finding the truth in them. I like your understanding.
This is a very deep analysis, I agree with you @kafkanarchy84
I'm still trying to figure out how getting rid of the state solves the problem without leaving a vaccuum for worse to fill it. Who stops Nestle from that kind of coersion without a state? Of course the state has failed to do it's job in allowing Nestle to go so far, but what could possibly stop a new state from forming out of corporations or organized crime in the absense of the state without a total redistribution of resources and (currently unrealistic) widespread agreement on a new way forward? I ask because I feel you and a lot of your ideological peers are decent and intelligent people but I've yet to be convinced.
I'm not sure if you remember but I'm the guy that wants to see us adopt a kind of peaceful coalition of experimental tribe-like communities , many of which have looser ideas of property and trade and contract, perhaps some with varied ideas like your own, a real variety of communities all interested in peaceful coexistance and consensus as an ideal. Of course I do realize this vision is equally hard to imagine playing out, but I think some form of a state provides the stability with which to eventually ensure that any entity like Nestle or Google or Tesla become something of a new state. Meanwhile those communities could develop on the sidelines of society. And of course that state would have to be vastly different from what we have now, it would have to have it's own deconstruction and the deconstruction of corporate controlled power set as a priority. A state whose main goal is to make itself obsolete.
I think a rise in "progressivism" and "Bernie-like" politicians with a devotion towards getting the money out of politics, not to mention a new non-partisan, non-corporate-funded media might be a step in the right direction simply because they would allow us to begin to push these conversations in the mainstream. The goal is also a no-state , but perhaps the road is a bit longer and more winded, but much more realistic, as far as I see.
I am intrigued by where you say "we need to change what we define as property" and where you start to go with that. I still haven't been able to imagine exactly what you propose happens to all that property that has been seized through coersion if you don't have a state? I feel this reply has become a bit roundabout, as I wasn't intending to write so much, but if you understand what I'm trying to say, please direct me to any post that adresses this or feel free to write a new one that answers these kinds of questions.
I only bring my questions to you cause I respect your opinions and sensibility, perhaps the most out of the voluntaryists I've come across, which is very few to be honest.
If we get rid of the slaves. who will pick the cotton?
It doesn’t matter if there is a “vacuum” or what would fill it. Stealing and violence are wrong.
As long as it’s voluntary and consensual, even if it’s the small state you propose, it’s legit. The moment it violates the consent of even one peaceful individual, it isn’t.
We don’t ask how the cotton will be picked. We’re concerned with the slavery.
Published in a very special to give examples .. Interested in your publications @kafkanarchy84
your all post are good
So if Nestle takes away your homesteaded property land, then Nestle is still not evil?
Because its the failure of the state that Nestle was able to bribe so many officials?
Nobody said this and this argument was not made.
Without the state Nestle had nothing to bribe. Maybe they could hire some immoral men with guns to chase him of his homesteaded property land, but no one would think Nestle or it's hired criminals would act morally or right and would think bad of kafkanarchy if he defended himself, if I was living in his neighborhood It would be a good thing if I helped him with defending.
In contrast with how it is now, Nestle can hire the criminals with guns ( with costumes and shiny little shields as requisit) and send them to @kafkanarchy84, and most people would not blink an eye, they would even say that kafkanachy was the bad guy defending himself against the criminals and cheer for him being put in jail or to death. Because it's the law or some other excuse.
That's how it now sadly works.
edit
In both situation the man with guns would be the criminals and be most guilty. I say most because they are doing the deeds. Of course Nestle and the politicians would not go without blame.
For instance: If I would hire and assassin, that murders the human I say he must murder then I would be guilty of that murder too.
I would even argue that voters are to blame. They hire the government (which consists of hired politicians, men with guns and bureaucrats which are backed by the men with guns)
In a lot of those cases nobody votes for those rulers, at least not out of free will.
Maybe not, but they voted for the system. Wherefore the violence of the state is used differs but it's still violence. i.m.o.
Of course a lot of people are grown up in this system, and they may have chosen differently would they not have had the indoctrination of the system. So in a sense they did not vote out of free will ...I hope will get the will, to be free, to exercise free will...... but who knows.
Thank you for the reply.