[A-List] New Economy Bull

[Annewilliamson]

Probably, Macdonald, then we're going to "miss" one another's arguments,
because I do not believe property began as theft.....which is not to say
that I don't believe property can be and is stolen, which is what I maintain
happened in Russia in the 1990s "reform" epoch - an entire people's legacy
was stolen by a handful of people, aided and abetted (if not designed) by
Western advisers/lenders/exploiters.  Our waterfront thugs at the IMF and
the WB execute this maneuver the world over through their lending on behalf
of commercial bankers and various national elites -- but I don't have near
the detail that I do on Russia.  But it is my view that property began
spontaneously as part of the natural order, not as a consequence of some bad
people knocking some peasants over the head and then tossing them out of
their huts (that came later, once the concept of a "state" was established.)
I understand that you are a committed Marxist, and that I am most likely not
going to change your views in any way -- but, if you like, I can find a
piece by Hans Hermann Hoppe that goes through the libertarian view of the
origins of private property step by step.  It's not an exciting read, but a
very closely argued presentation that you might like to have for no other
purpose than to refute it.  Let me know if you're interested and I will dig
it up.  All best,  Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Macdonald Stainsby" <mstainsby at tao.ca>
To: <a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] New Economy Bull)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson at msn.com>
> > No, force is not required to maintain property relations -
> > only to expropriate property.  It is the parasitic state that
> > claims such authority.
> >
>
> Ultimately, all private property is expropriation from the public whole.
If we
> don't agree on that, then most everything else will miss each other's
> arguement... If I believe that what you say of the state and its monopoly
on
> expropriation is true, then if I also believe what I think (all property
is
> social until stolen for a smaller set of people, in order to accrue
illegitimate
> advantage from that property), we canno0t talk without missing one another
> entirely...
>
> Macdonald
>
>
>