Ancaps btfo by actual anarchists

Retarded. You just change the definition of theft so that it entitles you to steal from others. Property is not theft and anyone making the claim is free to take it to the public forum and get BTFO hard.

The concept of "owning" property has only existed with the establishment of a state.

Pic related, from the man who coined the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" himself. Rothbard statd that his anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." It relies on pre-determined legal codes and a state. Not anarchism.

>Property is not theft

Is the father of anarchism wrong? Proudhon said "property is theft" well over a century before Rothbard and Nozick started anarchism-lite with legal codes and state-enforced property claims intact.

You have a lot to learn.

I don't think that quote means exactly what you think it means. Proudhon would have had a lot more in common with "an-caps" than anarcho-commies. Are you familiar with Benjamin Tucker's work?

>but the property did exist. its natures.

Triggered user, either you're an adept troll or a fucking retard.

reminder that you're both retarded

also how are you going to enforce collectivising property without coercion and a centralized organizing body ?

What does any of that have to do with what I said, and how does the link between owning property and the state mean that property is theft?

>Proudhon would have had a lot more in common with "an-caps" than anarcho-commies.

No, Proudhon rejected capitalism. His goal was to eliminate it, along with the state. Hence the abolishment of property rights.

You do realize that Marx and Proudhon corresponded often before Marx wrote the "Communist Manifesto"? They disagreed on many things but the concept of property ownership was not one.

Proudhon's entire premise was based on the abolishment of state-enforced property rights. Is it a coincidence that Marx's definition of communism is also stateless and also relies on this abolishment of property rights and the state? Or that anarchism and communism were synonymous up until the failure of the Paris Commune?

>Benjamin Tucker's work

Yes, Tucker coined the term "Anarchistic-Socialism".

Because it belonged to the commons before the state was established and enforced these "property claims".

by killing all of you statists

Proudhon was more Cred Forums than most of Cred Forums.

Socialism in Tuckers time was not what it means now. Any theory addressing and attempting to solve the "social question" was considered socialism. Proudhon and Tucker both opposed capitalism while they supported markets. I sincerely hope you don't conflate markets with capitalism.

>implying property "rights" can exist without the state

By eliminating the state. The goal isn't necessarily to collectivize everything, the goal is to return things to their natural order.

Currently, people are able to "own" property which they do not occupy or possess. This absentee ownership is only possible with the establishment of a state.

Once the state is eliminated, people are only be able to occupy and possess that which they readily capable of occupying and possessing. It's a return to natural law. The very concept of "ownership" is eliminated with the state, as the state is no longer present to enforce claims.

>Socialism in Tuckers time was not what it means now.

I know.

>Any theory addressing and attempting to solve the "social question" was considered socialism.

No, the definition of socialism, according to Tucker himself was any theory aimed at solving "the labor problem".

Benjamin Tucker's anarchistic socialism had the same labor theory of value as Marxism.

>Proudhon and Tucker both opposed capitalism while they supported markets

As did Marx.

>By eliminating the state. The goal isn't necessarily to collectivize everything, the goal is to return things to their natural order.
But hierarchy is the natural order which expresses itself as the state their has never been a post neolithic society without what you would define as a state

>Currently, people are able to "own" property which they do not occupy or possess. This absentee ownership is only possible with the establishment of a state.
Except that privatized communication and transportation can make absentee ownership viable as well
>Once the state is eliminated, people are only be able to occupy and possess that which they readily capable of occupying and possessing. It's a return to natural law. The very concept of "ownership" is eliminated with the state, as the state is no longer present to enforce claims.
Once again hierarchy is the natural ordering of human civilization because no two humans are equal. Ownership can be expressed without the state as something you have the projection of force to hold on to (ie might makes right)

So what you're really arguing is that single ownership is theft from common ownership, not that the concept of property itself is theft.

>Live in commune
>Go to field to grow crops
>Come back to my shelter
>It was "occupied" by someone else
>"you weren't occupying it"
If property is theft then personal property is theft too.

Reminder that ancap and ancom are retarded. Statism is the only viable way

Also, you're a complete fucking retard. The statement "property is theft" presupposes property. It is a self-refuting statement. Even Marx criticized that stupid quote.

We tight then. I was just worried you were a commie.

"Property is liberty" - Proudhon

>But hierarchy is the natural order which expresses itself as the state their has never been a post neolithic society without what you would define as a state

It has happened in several instances, such as Anarchist Aragon or Revolutionary Catalonia. The issue being that outside statists seize upon the lack of central power. Whether or not it is feasible today isn't really my argument. I'm just purporting the ideology of anarchism, and what happens when the state is eliminated.

>Except that privatized communication and transportation can make absentee ownership viable as well

There is no "privatizing" anything when the state is eliminated. The elimination of the state brings an end to the state-enforced concepts of "ownership" or "property".

>Once again hierarchy is the natural ordering of human civilization because no two humans are equal.

I never made the claim. Yes, tribal communal living usually develops some form of natural hierarchy within groups. The difference between this and state-enforced hierarchies is that one is natural and voluntary while the other is coercive and state-enforced.

>Ownership can be expressed without the state as something you have the projection of force to hold on to (ie might makes right)

Yes, this is exactly what Proudhon referred to as "personal property". That which you readily possess, occupy and can defend as your own. This is all that exists when the state is eliminated, unlike state-enforced claims to property. Proudhon made this distinction between "personal property" (that which you readily possess, occupy and can defend as yours) and "private property" (state-enforced property claims).

Personal property (which you readily possess, occupy) is liberty, private property (state-enforced claims to property) is theft.

like 90% of people who support ancapism/anarchism wouldn't last even a day in such a society without getting killed/raped/enslaved/exploited

It's not personal property if you don't currently possess or occupy it.

Nonetheless, if your group/tribe/community is okay with people doing this then it must be a norm, otherwise they would ostracize the person.

The argument you have specifically used to say that property is theft also applies to personal property. You're just being a hypocrite because you know no one would agree that personal property should be given up. The same way I can have a cousin who is staying at my house protect it, I can have someone I have hired to protect my fields and livestock while I am not there.

>The argument you have specifically used to say that property is theft also applies to personal property.

No, one is state-enforced while the other is not.

The only "property" that exists when the state is abolished is that which you readily occupy, possess and can defend as your own. This is the natural order of things, there does not exist any "ownership claims" without a state to enforce the claim. Is it that hard to understand?

>The same way I can have a cousin who is staying at my house protect it, I can have someone I have hired to protect my fields and livestock while I am not there.

In the natural order of things, dominion over the property is then transferred to the person who is defending it for you. Whether or not they decide to respect your previously-agreed-upon arrangement is up to them.

They could decide to continue to occupy the land and refuse to give up dominion over it and your "claim" would be meaningless because you have no state to enforce it. Ownership "claims" mean absolutely nothing when the state is eliminated. All that matters, in the natural world, is whether you can readily occupy, possess and defend it.

Again, this is natural law. Not man-made positive law.

>
The only "property" that exists when the state is abolished is that which you readily occupy, possess and can defend as your own. This is the natural order of things, there does not exist any "ownership claims" without a state to enforce the claim. Is it that hard to understand?
How does readily possessing property make it any less theft? Private or personal property demands exclusivity, it is denied to others, it is inherently hierarchical. My watch I am wearing was crafted through the resources of the Earth and denied to everyone else. Your logic cannot distinguish between personal and private property on an ethical basis.

>In the natural order of things, dominion over the property is then transferred to the person who is defending it for you. Whether or not they decide to respect your previously-agreed-upon arrangement is up to them.
Then how would it be statist to transfer dominion over my title to a protection agency like ancaps actually have proposed? I'm not an ancap by the way.