Private property is theft, personal property is fine
That awkward moment when reality meets your ideology. Some anarcho-communist is having a fanny wobble because informal settlers got evicted in Newtown. But wait! Anarchist communism doesn't approve of private property, only personal property. So on what grounds does anyone have the right to reside anywhere?
You may ask: Isn't this maxim a bit of a wank?
Let's try to unpack this bromide which was so obviously flawed that even Karl Marx could see its shortcomings.
- You're allowed personal property, so things like bicycles and underwear.
- You're not allowed private property, so you can't put up a fence. Ouch, right in my rent-seeking feels!
The corollary is that you're allowed to have stuff like bicycles and underwear, but you're not allowed to keep your stuff anywhere. You're also not allowed to own stuff like bicycle and underwear factories. Property is theft! But only private property. Personal property is the category error we invented.
|The Vespa Militare. In the abscence of property rights, all personal property bicycles would probably be have to look like this? Read more about the bazooka Vespa here!|
But no, it's not a bit of a wank, you pleb. This ad hoc hypothesis oops I mean well-founded ideology of the ages is just too deep for you to understand. You just need to read (insert author you've never heard of for the plain and simple reason that they're not worth being read here).
Because they too repeat bromide aphorisms designed to impress impressionable minds, but they take much longer to get to the point which you so rightly pointed out is a bit of a wank.
Hang on while I reinvent the wheel so I can explain who should produce things like bicycles when they have no ownership claim on where to manufacture them, and who would purchase bicycles when they have no ownership claim on where to put them once purchased.
|Kim Jung-on, at least one emperor who isn't naked. He doesn't believe in property rights either.|
But I'll never admit that my emperor is naked, not even when he is sans underwear! You just don't knit underwear very well with your eyes!