Those duly informed will recognize the above reference to Pierre-Joseph Proudon, the guy who came up with the term "anarchist," but who also unfortunately gave it connotations associated with communism — so as to forever vex those of us who recognize the immorality of the State in all of its manifestations, even the "non-state" state of state communism.
One question that eventually occurs to anyone who has a habit of thinking (meaning: for themselves; the only possible way) is that of the fundamental nature of property; that aspect of it beyond the simple but effective manner is has typically been established: brutish conquest, assertion of power, and legal fiat (notes to self). They aren’t making any more of it (at least in the "dirt" sense), the world’s population is increasing, so by what moral right can some lone individually properly lay any absolute claim to it?
Update: Wow; blast from the past. Writing this post reminded me of an exchange I had with a friend of mine, from when I had lived in France. This is from October, 11, 1996, so just over 10 years ago.
There are two additional things that I should have mentioned about Proudhon specifically, and his version of anarchy and those who support it in general. Both involve inherent contradictions.
1. The saying he is most famous for:
"Property is theft." (la propriété, c’est le vol)
Is, in its very self, a contradiction. The concept of theft presupposes the concept of property. In order to have theft, you must first have property. Thus, with a cute-sounding, catchy phrase, he manipulatively attempts to put forth meaning by means of a contradiction.
2. The other contradiction involves the same thing, but goes to the very root of the version of anarchy which disallows property.
In my last post, I gave a hint as to what sorts of things in nature give rise to the fact of property. Because of the sorts of beings that humans are, our tool of survival, rather than being sinew, claw, and tooth, is our mind. Specifically, reason, that which differentiates us from all other animals.
Man requires values for survival, and reason is his means of acquiring them. This subsumes a whole host of things which are requirements for producing those values necessary for survival. One of those things is property. Men acquire and protect property as a natural state of affairs dictated by their requirements in order to survive.
In fact, all animals make claims to property. What differentiates civilized men is that we establish organized means of sorting out conflicting claims with respect to property, whereas, other animals resort to the only tools at their disposal–typically, their claws and teeth.
The anarchists against property have done something utterly incredible. They have reasoned that property arises from government, not from the nature of man. In so doing, they have elevated government to a status in nature that might make even the most die-hard statist blush with envy.
A strange thing for an "anarchist" to do.
The proper position for the anarchist should be that government is a fiction, an aberration, a god created by the people in the image of their mystical god. Government is nothing more than the reification of the concept of god, mother, and father all combined into one.
Marx saw religion as the opium of the people, and sought about to substitute it for another opiate–the state. What he didn’t realize is that god and the state are essentially one in the same!
So, in the first case above, we have anarchists using a property-dependent concept to argue against property. In the second case, we have them setting up the government as primary to the nature of man, in order to establish property as something derived from government, in order that they can then dispense with it as they dispense with government.
And if they really hold government as such a primary, what would they be doing by tearing it down?
This all leads me to the conclusion, once again, that anarchists against property are not primarily anarchists. They are value-grabbing nihilists first and foremost.