What is the logical result of all Anarchy Communism ventures?

If a society is voluntary, and voluntarily decides to make all property public, that is in theory AnaCom. But what happens when someone from that utopia decides they don’t want to share, even if it is a completely minor thing; does that mean that they just put value on that object? What happens if the now ownership of that thing disrupts the whole community of AnComs? How would an AnCom resolve such disputes without resulting in the use of force?

A couple of definitions so that you know where this is going

  • AnCom – Anarchist Communist – No government, but no property rights either.
  • AnCap – Anarchist Capitalist – No government, but property rights exist to the point where you can enforce them without a government

Both positions claim to hold the Non-Aggression Principle to heart. That is force is only used in self defense.

Lets look at the options:

  1. Ignore the situation and find another way to move on without the use of that particular piece of property.
  2. Try to duplicate the property, so that its value is irreverent.
  3. Try to convince the person who is claiming the property to relinquish it for the greater good.
  4. Try to exchange it for something that the person may decide has higher value.
  5. Take it from them.
  6. I don’t know, post your opinions in comment

Reverse order analysis:

  1. You are now no longer an AnCom society, you have just embraced extortion and violence, hence formed a government. Enjoy your socialism.
  2. You have just validated AnCap principles, and the rest of the public property is now suspect to being claimed by others for the same reason.
  3. Morality is subjective in this case. Meaning that if the property is a shirt, the person may not have a problem giving it up, but what if it is a kidney, or their heart? Maybe it was something less critical such as a picture of a family member. The value that a person places on things provides a great measure on what they are willing to relinquish. If you cannot convince them that they are wrong, and you are right, are you going to stop there, which would validate AnCap belief that value is a moral decision and that you cannot remove personal value in exchange with public value.
  4. If you can do this with everything you have just solved the whole dilemma with the AnCom society. Welcome to Star Trek’s universe, meaning this only happens in Science Fiction.
  5. Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away. You have just put value on the item in question. You have decided that its value is low enough to ignore it because it doesn’t impact the greater good enough to worry about it. And Welcome to AnCap society 101, understanding that value is a moral decision. The only way for your AnCom society to exist as advertised is if you destroy the concept of individual value. Once you do that, then everything is the same, and everything is recyclable. But then if everything is the same, why have a family? If everything has the same value the people around you are the same value as the doorknob, when useful, you use them, when not, you don’t. This is a very vile point of view.

Here is the core of this: AnCom is nothing more than a delusion that you can have piece and prosperity by devaluing everything to the point of sameness. But I am going to tell you that if you value compassion, and love over all things, then you will value people over things, and you can still have your commune, but with private property. It is because property becomes something that you manage and hold for a duration, but it becomes useful to others when you value those people above your things.

What do I mean by value? Friendship, love, compassion, companionship, these are the things that I value. So I make the THINGS that I manage available to those who need them, knowing that I am getting paid in something I value more.

Is it wrong that I get money at times? No. Money is a tool, and the moment that I value that tool over people is the moment that I devalue people. I find that reprehensible.

Money should never be taken for granted, but it should never be valued over people either. So I leave it in your hands how to work out that balance.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Brian By Experience, Liberty and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s