My jaw literally dropped reading this. This couldn't be a more perfect post to explain what I have been attempting to share with you.
"At first, people believed that life couldn't go on without these violent practices, that civilization would "collapse" if they were set aside. Yet history did set them aside - and life went on, indeed somewhat better than before because human beings have the ingenuity to devise noncoercive approaches.
In their heyday, [these uses of force] are thought to be inevitable, something no one can do anything about. Nevertheless, generations later, they have disappeared. It is likely that the same pattern still applies, and that uses of force that today seem ingrained and even essential are also destined to disappear."
Capitalism is just another violent practice of giving ourselves the "rights" to impose our will on other life!
So, what I am suggesting is that we abolish such barbaric systems even though they may appear "ingrained and even essential"!
"He concludes that the evolution away from force and towards voluntary alternatives is slow and uneven, but that those who associate themselves with voluntary efforts are on a "more secure path to progress"."
This is exactly what I'm suggesting!! Private (opposed to personal) property is only possible through the use or threat of force dictated by the state. You cannot have a world full of private property (quote from other article), if you do not have a state to enforce private access to said property.
So, allow me to offer the idea that capitalism is at the source of much of our violence and force! If we can agree on this then we can evolve our conversation to designing better alternatives. Such as Our NeighbourGood a project I'm developing and would love any critique from your brilliant mind!
Thank you for reading this! Payne's book is an interesting one to me.
I'm glad that you also find the ideal of voluntary association appealing. I see markets, the free exchange of goods and services, to be exactly that; voluntary. When people freely trade goods and services with each other for their mutual benefit instead of taking things from each other by force, that is a great thing.
I deplore violence, but I'm not a pacifist. I think there are some legitimate uses of violence. What I am thinking about primarily here is self-defence. When someone uses violence against you, I say that you have the right to respond with violence in return. But only so much violence as is necessary to fend of the attacker, no more.
I do not agree that the idea of property is somehow inherently violent. To the contrary, it is those that violate a person's legitimate property that commit violence against that person. When someone tries to take away something that rightfully belongs to you, it is an aggression against you. And when you are forced to resort to violence try to stop them, you are acting in self-defence.
That the very idea of property is somehow based on force I do not find plausible. If only everyone always respected everybody else's property, no defensive force would ever be needed.
I also disagree with your claim that the state is necessary to enforce property. There are countless private measures that an individual can take to protect his or her stuff from others, ranging from a simple lock on the door to private security guards. Simply put, personal security is a service that can be provided privately on a voluntary basis.
Now, as I have tried to explain elsewhere "capitalism" may mean more than one thing, and I do not have an attachment to the word itself. What I support is, again, voluntary association, and this includes market exchange. If by "capitalism" we mean no more than voluntary economic association, free exchange and free enterprise, then I support it. But I think that you and many others mean something quite different by the word, and I have no problem saying that I am against capitalism if it refers to the kind of system we see today in so called liberal democracies where big business is in cahoots with big government.
Also, I had another idea that just came to me that may help further elaborate my point.
If you had a car, and that car was stolen from you then sold (on a free market) to another man. Does that last man "legitimately own it"? If you say that it is the last mans because he bought it. Then you're a capitalist (as I define it). If you say that it still belongs to you because the initial transaction was illegitimate. Then you probably agree with me (although you may not know it). Because capitalism is the original "original sin" where we stole things from every living being on the planet and all humans (who are and will be) and claimed individual ownership of it. That's where it all began! Ever since then it has been (if you agree with the latter) illegitimate transfers of property. The whole idea of private ownership (outside of personal ownership or homesteading) is illegitimate.
And this illegitimacy only stands through the use of violence (administered by the state, or feudal lords, or kings, etc)
This is a great question!
I think that the best answer is that as long as all three persons are still around and are identified, then the car must be returned to its original owner. Furthermore, the person who stole the car must also pay damages to the original owner. If the person who bought the stolen car did so in good faith (without any reason to believe that it had been stolen), then the thief must return the money plus damages to him as well. The fault lies entirely on the shoulders of the thief-fraudster.
The situation is different however if the original owner is no longer around or cannot be identified. Then there is nobody to return it to. Similarly, if the thief-fraudster is not identified. And if whoever has it now bought it in good faith, then taking it away from that person now is unjust.
You realize that in order for all these events to happen a state would have to enforce it. (or in the libertarian example a privately owned organization that somehow is given the authorization to administer force) through some random code of ethics (laws) that people abide by...
Not that this matters. I see now that there are some areas where we disagree. I would call that car stolen regardless if the person it was stolen from is alive.
Many would be grand-theft auto/murders would be relieved to know all they have to do is kill the guy who owned the car in order for them to sell it without it being illegitimate.
Of course, a stolen car is a stolen car. And stealing it in the first place was unjust. If we can correct this injustice by having the thief return the car to its original owner and return the money to the good faith buyer, then all is well. But sadly it is not possible to correct all past injustices without adding further injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What alternative would you suggest?
Transitioning into collaborative ownership (which would benefit all people involved) it would be a non-violent means of doing so as people would voluntarily do this based on the benefits.
Then maybe there is a future where these terms of 'ownership' would no longer serve us. I'm speaking philosophically with my ethics (the future I see) I realize this isn't done in one step. It's a process. So, collaborative ownership of all private property (i.e. commons) would be my alternative, thus removing any sole private ownership. The car example is poor, I'm referring to the commons where a vehicle would be personal (with added taxes from Commons used resources, but that is another topic.)
As long as it would be on a voluntary basis, I have no problem with communities trying this idea out. No doubt, in a free world, where all human interaction is voluntary, different groups of people will live different kinds of lives with different rules and practices. It is an empirical question which rules of ownership benefits people the most, and I support the practical experimentation with different rules.
However, my prediction is that even though collaborative ownership might work in small enough groups, it will break down when groups grow bigger.