Property = Theft

[Anarchist Patriot]

http://dhm.best.vwh.net/archives/proudhon-ch1.html

by Paul Proudhon

PROPERTY IS ROBBERY! That is the war-cry of '93! That is the
signal of revolutions!

Reader, calm yourself: I am no agent of discord, no firebrand of
sedition. I anticipate history by a few days; I disclose a truth
whose development we may try in vain to arrest; I write the
preamble of our future constitution. This proposition which
seems to you blasphemous--PROPERTY IS ROBBERY--would, if our
prejudices allowed us to consider it, be recognized as the
lightning-rod to shield us from the coming thunderbolt; but too
many interests stand in the way! . . . Alas! philosophy will not
change the course of events: destiny will fulfill itself
regardless of prophecy. Besides, must not justice be done and
our education be finished?

PROPERTY IS ROBBERY! . . . What a revolution in human ideas!
PROPRIETOR and ROBBER have been at all times expressions as
contradictory as the beings whom they designate are hostile; all
languages have perpetuated this opposition. On what authority,
then, do you venture to attack universal consent, and give the
lie to the human race? Who are you, that you should question the
judgment of the nations and the ages?

Of what consequence to you, reader, is my obscure individuality?
I live, like you, in a century in which reason submits only to
fact and to evidence. My name, like yours, is TRUTH-
SEEKER.[1] My mission is written in these words of the law:
SPEAK WITHOUT HATRED AND WITHOUT FEAR; TELL THAT WHICH THOU
KNOWEST! The work of our race is to build the temple of
science, and this science includes man and Nature. Now, truth
reveals itself to all; to-day to Newton and Pascal, tomorrow to
the herdsman in the valley and the journeyman in the shop. Each
one contributes his stone to the edifice; and, his task
accomplished, disappears. Eternity precedes us, eternity follows
us: between two infinites, of what account is one poor mortal
that the century should inquire about him?

[1] In Greek, {GREEK e ncg } examiner; a philosopher whose
business is to seek the truth.




Disregard then, reader, my title and my character, and attend
only to my arguments. It is in accordance with universal consent
that I undertake to correct universal error; from the OPINION
of the human race I appeal to its FAITH. Have the courage to
follow me; and, if your will is untrammelled, if your conscience
is free, if your mind can unite two propositions and deduce a
third therefrom, my ideas will inevitably become yours. In
beginning by giving you my last word, it was my purpose to warn
you, not to defy you; for I am certain that, if you read me, you
will be compelled to assent. The things of which I am to speak
are so simple and clear that you will be astonished at not having
perceived them before, and you will say: "I have neglected to
think." Others offer you the spectacle of genius wresting
Nature's secrets from her, and unfolding before you her sublime
messages; you will find here only a series of experiments upon
JUSTICE and RIGHT a sort of verification of the weights and
measures of your conscience. The operations shall be conducted
under your very eyes; and you shall weigh the result.

Nevertheless, I build no system. I ask an end to privilege, the
abolition of slavery, equality of rights, and the reign of law.
Justice, nothing else; that is the alpha and omega of my
argument: to others I leave the business of governing the world.

One day I asked myself: Why is there so much sorrow and misery
in society? Must man always be wretched? And not satisfied with
the explanations given by the reformers,--these attributing the
general distress to governmental cowardice and incapacity, those
to conspirators and emeutes, still others to ignorance and
general corruption,--and weary of the interminable quarrels of
the tribune and the press, I sought to fathom the matter myself.
I have consulted the masters of science; I have read a hundred
volumes of philosophy, law, political economy, and history: would
to God that I had lived in a century in which so much reading had
been useless! I have made every effort to obtain exact
information, comparing doctrines, replying to objections,
continually constructing equations and reductions from arguments,
and weighing thousands of syllogisms in the scales of the most
rigorous logic. In this laborious work, I have collected many
interesting facts which I shall share with my friends and the
public as soon as I have leisure. But I must say that I
recognized at once that we had never understood the meaning of
these words, so common and yet so sacred: JUSTICE, EQUITY,
LIBERTY; that concerning each of these principles our ideas have
been utterly obscure; and, in fact, that this ignorance was the
sole cause, both of the poverty that devours us, and of all the
calamities that have ever afflicted the human race.

My mind was frightened by this strange result: I doubted my
reason. What! said I, that which eye has not seen, nor ear
heard, nor insight penetrated, you have discovered! Wretch,
mistake not the visions of your diseased brain for the truths of
science! Do you not know (great philosophers have said so) that
in points of practical morality universal error is a
contradiction?

I resolved then to test my arguments; and in entering upon this
new labor I sought an answer to the following questions: Is it
possible that humanity can have been so long and so universally
mistaken in the application of moral principles? How and why
could it be mistaken? How can its error, being universal, be
capable of correction?

These questions, on the solution of which depended the certainty
of my conclusions, offered no lengthy resistance to analysis. It
will be seen, in chapter V. of this work, that in morals, as in
all other branches of knowledge, the gravest errors are the
dogmas of science; that, even in works of justice, to be mistaken
is a privilege which ennobles man; and that whatever
philosophical merit may attach to me is infinitely small. To
name a thing is easy: the difficulty is to discern it before its
appearance. In giving expression to the last stage of an idea,--
an idea which permeates all minds, which to-morrow will be
proclaimed by another if I fail to announce it to-day,--I can
claim no merit save that of priority of utterance. Do we
eulogize the man who first perceives the dawn?

Yes: all men believe and repeat that equality of conditions is
identical with equality of rights; that PROPERTY and ROBBERY
are synonymous terms; that every social advantage accorded, or
rather usurped, in the name of superior talent or service, is
iniquity and extortion. All men in their hearts, I say, bear
witness to these truths; they need only to be made to understand
it.

Before entering directly upon the question before me, I must
say a word of the road that I shall traverse. When Pascal
approached a geometrical problem, he invented a method of
solution; to solve a problem in philosophy a method is equally
necessary. Well, by how much do the problems of which philosophy
treats surpass in the gravity of their results those discussed by
geometry! How much more imperatively, then, do they demand for
their solution a profound and rigorous analysis!

It is a fact placed for ever beyond doubt, say the modern
psychologists, that every perception received by the mind is
determined by certain general laws which govern the mind; is
moulded, so to speak, in certain types pre-existing in our
understanding, and which constitutes its original condition.
Hence, say they, if the mind has no innate IDEAS, it has at
least innate FORMS. Thus, for example, every phenomenon is of
necessity conceived by us as happening in TIME and SPACE,--
that compels us to infer a CAUSE of its occurrence; every thing
which exists implies the ideas of SUBSTANCE, MODE, RELATION,
NUMBER, &C.; in a word, we form no idea which is not related to
some one of the general principles of reason, independent of
which nothing exists.

These axioms of the understanding, add the psychologists, these
fundamental types, by which all our judgments and ideas are
inevitably shaped, and which our sensations serve only to
illuminate, are known in the schools as CATEGORIES. Their
primordial existence in the mind is to-day demonstrated; they
need only to be systematized and catalogued. Aristotle
recognized ten; Kant increased the number to fifteen; M. Cousin
has reduced it to three, to two, to one; and the indisputable
glory of this professor will be due to the fact that, if he has
not discovered the true theory of categories, he has, at least,
seen more clearly than any one else the vast importance of this
question,--the greatest and perhaps the only one with which
metaphysics has to deal.

Um.. Did anyone else notice that no where does he offer anything that remotely supports his conclusions? In fact in the denial of reason, he necessarily defeats his (eventual?) arguments?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Yes: all men believe and repeat that equality of conditions is
identical with equality of rights; that PROPERTY and ROBBERY
are synonymous terms; that every social advantage accorded, or
rather usurped, in the name of superior talent or service, is
iniquity and extortion<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hm.. This is a difficult claim to make, given that this view is extremely rare, always self-defeating, and contrary to reality. In fact, if property were to be considered theft, then necessarily no property can exist. Without the existence of property, theft cannot occur. If theft does not occur, then property cannot be theft.

So we see by starting with the premise/conclusion that property is theft, we can derive its contradiction simply by employing sound deductive reasoning.

[m3talsmith]

I'd have to say that I get this guys point, but not the conclusions.

I believe there are many solutions to the problem of war. The problem is convincing the warriors to give up their trade.

This guys premise is way off the mark. It is impossible to have any sort of societal structure without individuals reaping the rewards of their effort, aka. property. This guy's rant reminds me of someone I once knew. A very intelligent and studious person with no social graces. He wasted his talents filling his head with information and found no useful outlet for his skills.

[Mia]

LB, how is it relevant that the view is rare? Truth is not a poularity contest, is it?

It is relevent in that the claim was that this is a universal view, so the fact that it is not universal is quite important in the refutation of that claim.

So, out of curiosity, since you have denied reason entirely, why continue the petty vendetta against me as a person anyway?

He's either not taking his meds, or taking too much. Kinda wish I had some.

[rhod01]

Nothing is 'robbery' if you gain it with the owners' permission.

In the example you have given, permission was conditional upon certain goods being exchanged else certain services being provided. Since those goods or services were not provided as described, permission was not in fact ever given.

[Kyran]

And in the last days men shall call good evil and call evil good.

First off, the usage of property and theft as synonymous terms is only logical to socialist-minded individuals (Economic Equality Bracket.) Socialism demands the expropriation (read THEFT) of the private sector's entrepeneurships and the handing over of them to the government.

I have played guitar for years.
I have a band.
I sell our CDs.

So my music (intellectual property) is "robbery" eh?
The CDs my music comes in are robbery too?

Yeah...argue with me...

[castille]

If I work hard and someone (socialist government) comes along to steal my property, then I won't bother working again, because why bother to work hard for no reason?


You do realise, in a socialist society, you would have to produce 4 billion apples, in order to have 1 apple allocated to you?

I can imagine nobody would bother trying to grow 4 billion apples, just so the state can steal them all and give 1 back@

[rhod01]

If you think that a socialist govt. can only act like that, you're a presumptious possum.

[Cadre]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised the issue of Socialist Programs.

Paul Proudhon could support his arguments by referencing them. The fact that alot of socialist programs and anthropologically beneficial affairs in a socialist/otherwise environment are raped and pillaged.

Group A supports Group B, while Group B procrastinates and reaps the rewards.

Property in this scenario is metaphorically stolen.

** WEE first post, hi everyone!

[lostkiwi]

Why am I compelled to read such stupidity? Every word....and yet from the first three I knew that it was worthless.

Property - Something owned, a possession

Robbery - The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property
of another by the use of violence or intimidation.

If something is to be owned it has to be owned by someone. If something is stolen it has to be stolen from someone. In both cases the involvement of an individual is required, in the act of robbery you need two individuals.

The Author is stating that the very act of ownership is and act of theft. Who then am I stealing from? And what right do they have to the item?

The act of ownership and the concept of property were created by men for the use of men. Nature cannot own anything, mankind in fact cannot be said to own anything. Before property is created by the will and conscious thought of men it cannot be said to belong to anyone.

The only robbery I see intimated here is the theft of one mans hard work for the benefit of looters and parasites.

[Hagbard Celine]

"Property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore anything I steal is mine" -Zaphod Beeblebrox, paraphrased

[Catch 22]

good god another natural rights ranting post. Can you guys just cool it for a moment? for the sake of the rest of our sanity?

[onasis]

Property is defined as capital that is used produced by the workers.

These commodities are sold to primarily benefit the owner(quite literally) of the workers, while the workers are forced to live off subsistence wages. The commoditites that are sold, should first have their price determined by the workers as an entity, then sold to benefit themselves first.

You need to realize that this was the mid 1800s, Proudhon has all that crazy eighteenth century talk in him. Don't take it so literally.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by onasis,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (onasis,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Property is defined as capital that is used produced by the workers. [/b]

I don't see why the definition of "property" should be that limited. I think a better definition would be something along the lines of;

An object that one person has exclusive rights to possess, use, and dispose of (trade).

Originally posted by onasis,@ These commodities are sold to primarily benefit the owner(quite literally) of the workers, while the workers are forced to live off subsistence wages.

In a free-market economy (which seems to be what we're discussing here), how specifically does an employer "own" his employees and how specifically are workers "forced" to live off subsistence wages?

Don't employees enter voluntarily into trade agreements with their employers? Couldn't an employeer have chosen not to take the job, or to have taken a different job instead? Certainly the employer doesn't hold a gun to the worker's head and force him to work. Since the worker chooses voluntarily to work for his employer, he must be better off for having doing so or else he wouldn't have chosen to do so.

<!--QuoteBegin-onasis,
The commoditites that are sold, should first have their price determined by the workers as an entity, then sold to benefit themselves first.
[/quote]

Why? If the trade agreement voluntarily made between the employer and the employee says that the employer will recieve a higher share of the profits than the employees, then why shouldn't this agreement be followed? The reason why an employer would most likely get more of a share of the profits is because he supplied the raw materials, the factory, the tools, etc. needed to produce the final product.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Property isn't theft. Theft isn't property.

Property is the culmination of hard work and effort at some point that benifited a person or group of people.

Theft is the taking of that culmination and calling it ones own without the work involved to gain such.

[onasis]

Originally posted by donkrabbit, I don't see why the definition of "property" should be that limited. I think a better definition would be something along the lines of; An object that one person has exclusive rights to possess, use, and dispose of (trade).

Well I was trying to clarify the definition that Proudhon was using along with most Marxists would.

In a free-market economy (which seems to be what we're discussing here), how specifically does an employer "own" his employees and how specifically are workers "forced" to live off subsistence wages?

The worker is forced to take low end jobs that provides little more than food money and shelter. The employer has the ability to get rid of the worker if the availablity of cheaper labor markets exist. The worker must submit to the will of the employer demands just to bring food to the table.

Don't employees enter voluntarily into trade agreements with their employers? Couldn't an employeer have chosen not to take the job, or to have taken a different job instead? Certainly the employer doesn't hold a gun to the worker's head and force him to work. Since the worker chooses voluntarily to work for his employer, he must be better off for having doing so or else he wouldn't have chosen to do so.

It's not a real gun, but it is some sort of a gun. A worker is forced to give in to the demands of the employer, if the worker demands, the employer will find a cheaper market. The employer uses competition for a job as an excuse for paying their laborers cheaper.

Why? If the trade agreement voluntarily made between the employer and the employee says that the employer will recieve a higher share of the profits than the employees, then why shouldn't this agreement be followed? The reason why an employer would most likely get more of a share of the profits is because he supplied the raw materials, the factory, the tools, etc. needed to produce the final product.

Yes the supplies are considered the capital that were used to create the profits, and so would the workers. Like capital the workers can be traded, sold, and dealt at any whim. These agreements are not always so voluntary. In a time where most of the capital is supplied by groups of people, and the laborers used to create the profit, the profit is channeled first towards the groups of people, then towards the development of the company, then towards the laborers, who will recieve the leftovers, in order for them to live.