Comments on: Distinctions of Ownership

By: Unwillingness to understand the Anarchist “opposition to authority” | A Division by Zer0

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:21:34 +0000

[...] authority. We can firstly prevent hierarchies from forming by not ebabling them (which is where the abolition of private property comes in) and by distibutedly coercing those who would impose them. But it is not tyrrany to oppose [...]

By: The perpetual confusion about “Property” | A Division by Zer0

The perpetual confusion about “Property” | A Division by Zer0 — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:17:11 +0000

[...] the time to abandonment, the scale of ownership (individualist or collective) etc but rather that there is a hard core difference which splits the ownership scale in half, making each half incompatible with the existence of the [...]

By: Socialism is not merely Anti-Capitalism | A Division by Zer0

Socialism is not merely Anti-Capitalism | A Division by Zer0 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:34:39 +0000

[...] working it. In other words: via Possession. This is a profoundly anti-propertarian proposition as it would prevent the basic concepts that make capitalism capitalist: The Capitalist mode of production Or more specifically Wage-labour (and also [...]

By: Why Anarchists and “Anarcho”-Capitalists can’t be allies | A Division by Zer0

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:37:21 +0000

[...] since they would be simply pulling in opposite directions, countering each other. Much like the practical gap between Private Property and Possession, so does the difference of tactics and theory make co-operation of these two camps [...]

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:46:20 +0000

All transactions, even lending, can be expressed as either selling or renting.

To a degree yes, but I'm not asking to stop borrowing or giving items away. I merely say that we shouldn't do it through a medium which repressents economic power and thus give the opportunity to some to accumulate this power and exercise it over others.

The sliding scale is not how "sticky" the property is… It's how much you trust the other party to respect your property rights.

That doesn't define property rights. The rental company within a possessive system would not exist in the first place so there's no point in talking about how much they would trust you and thus need "sticky" property to do business.

By: Theodore

Theodore — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:05:34 +0000

All transactions, even lending, can be expressed as either selling or renting. If I lend you my lawn mower so you can get your lawn tamed, I might ask you to, in payment, fill it up with gas. Or, I might reasonably expect to be able to borrow your drill next week to finish up my shelves.

The sliding scale is not how “sticky” the property is… It’s how much you trust the other party to respect your property rights. A professional rental company has you sign a contract and pay up front, because they don’t know you. Your buddy next door, however, not only has known you for the past ten years, but knows where you live. He can afford to allow you to pay him back later.

By: Outsourcing the Empire | Austro-Athenian Empire

Outsourcing the Empire | Austro-Athenian Empire — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:41:37 +0000

[...] db0 replies to some comments from me and Kevin [...]

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:27:13 +0000

How do I disagree with you?

By: Francois Tremblay

Francois Tremblay — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:27:08 +0000

Meaning that the only major difference I've seen is the position on money.

By: Soviet Onion

Soviet Onion — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:03:11 +0000

Express a logical argument and then get back to me.