private property is something you own that somebody else uses and you gain profit off them.

your private property becomes your own personal state

being born in a society with private property means that if all property is taken to start out you need A. A loan or B. A job
Both of these means you must give up resources you create to somebody.
http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-Lysander-Spooner-a-man-is-no-less-a-slave-143914.png

I appreciate your even handed approach here.

In response to the rebuttal of the first objection you see levied against AnCapism. Really at the end of the day, AnComs don't want to prevent anybody from organizing themselves in whatever way suits them. We just want to be free to organize ourselves according to our principles. All anarchists desire a society based on free association.

The thing that I think most AnComs have an intuitive understanding of, and a sensitivity to when interpreting history, is that capitalism and property is never content to respect boundaries. Capitalism relies on the accumulation of capital, which demands constant growth. History has many instances of societies being built on anarchist principles only to be violently crushed by outside forces... It's a very real fear that AnComs have, that any attempt to enact our principles will be overtaken by capitalists as long as those ideas thrive.

Great distinctions, I was wondering where you were going with it and was surprised.  

"While I agree that this is likely what much Anarcho-Communist theory put into practice would result in, I realize that this is not actually what AnComs profess to want."

Truth. Most ancoms probably dont WANT a state, but the inevitability of such is very open to debate, and it would do us all much more service to come together and get rid of the structure we agree should not exist. 

Keep up the great work!

Hmmm... Are you talking about my debate/discussion?   There is no rage, or incivility and people have been pretty cool.    Unless you are referring to others.
In fact if you read the last two paragraphs of my latest post you'll see that I am saying a similar thing to you.

I basically say it is hypothetical debate between primarily the idea of property.   Thinking for yourself is important, the hypothetical debate is mainly because whether you THINK for yourself will not necessarily stop PROPERTY and whether it is viewed as PRIVATE or PUBLIC has no impact on you.

I also said that in generations down the road if our descendants looked our debate they would likely laugh at how much we got totally wrong.

As to characterizing it as a ***raging debate*** that description does fit for places like reddit.   People get downright hostile there.   I haven't seen any of that here, so I either missed the posts you are referring to or you were exaggerating for emotional appeal in this blog post.   If you do see a raging debate please shoot me a link as I missed it.


EDIT: Here is my debate on the topic... has a link to my post that started it in the beginning.

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments


I don't see rage anywhere in that one.   Do I see rage and crazy stuff on reddit?   YES.    I have not seen it here.   No name calling, no implication anyone is stupid, etc.

A.

<p><a href="https://steemit.com/@lasseehlers/posts">Lasse Ehlers</a></p>

I am an individualist, but I don't have the certainties the ancaps have, nor the certainties the ancoms have. Maybe that is a good thing. I feel both ways' critiscisms are valid to some point.

We should try to find what unites us.

Do we agree that reduction, fragmentation of states are a good thing? Do we all reject the continental nations in favor of smaller countries, smaller concentration of power and resources, smaller armies?

The whole concept of a huge nation/empire suck (greece, egypt, rome, aztecs, mayas, napoleon's france, bismarck's germany, usa, fascists, soviet communists, china, etc etc etc). 

Do we all agree that 500 netherlands or 500 belgiums (yes, risking 500 swazilands)  would be better and would interfere less do/allow better  for the human beings?

>  But instead, on this platform where actual discussion and valuable dialogue seem to be encouraged, I decided to write this instead.

**THIS.** I've wasted so many hours in Facebook groups like the *AnCap vs AnCom Debate Group* or *Anarchist Philosophies*. So much misunderstanding about the use of words, more than anything else.

i'll just note two things in my reply. 1. Most "Anarcho-Communists" I have have interacted with have tended to be Statists who are just unsatisfied with the slate of current rulers. I say this, due to observing that most call for more State involvement to solve problems.   2. The distinction between private and public property is actually an easy one to grasp once you read early anarcho-socialists (even mutualists note this distinction).  I have written about over at politicalcure.com . But to save  you of time, it boils down to whether or not the good in question is a capital good or consumer good.  Personal property= consumer goods. 

signed. --An AnCap/Voluntaryist/Individualist Market Anarchist

I disagree with ancoms on everything and with ancaps on two FUNDAMENTAL issues: 

1. Many of them advocate private states, private law, private mercernaries, private jugdes. I dont give a shit who you give your resources to, but if you wanna enforce your ''private laws'' on me, your a statist, of the facist variety. 

2. LAND CANNOT BE PRIVATELY OWNED ONLY POSSESSED. 
Ancaps, If one advocates using violence to control land you do not use, it allows for the monopolization of land, which i believe is the origin of the state. it makes it hypothetically possible for one human being or one corporation to control all the land, and all human activities depend on land. There fore in a private land society the renters are slaves to the parasite landlords class, in the past we called it fuedalism. 

Think about it, every human has the right to grow his food and build his own house, but in ancapistan all land (including free/unused land) is monopolized and he who owns it can demand thousands of dollars per square meters, just like it is done today. 

Pure Anarchism does not define detials of economic and conflict resolution it merely apposes all sources of authority. Therefore i have come to identify with individualist anarchism (not egoist) to emphasis that i oppose both ancoms and ancaps. 

As for ancoms, they oppose Private capital as if it were evil, capital is anything that can create more things, so a scizzors, a hammer, a sewing machine are capital that anyone has the right to own, even rent if they want. But if one uses their brain, land cannot fit in this category of property. first of all the earth was before all of us, no one put in labor to create the planet. We came afterwards. As tridimensional beings we require a 3d space to exist which since being land mammals and we require land just to survive.

I appreciate the effort to address an-cap and an-com in the same breath. I personally think that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. 
However I understand that we all have different opinions on this. 

I do think it is important, for free thinking people to not limit themselves to public discourse which they 100% agree with.  
At the very least you cannot make a discerning and rational critique of something you only have 2nd hand familiarity with.

<img src="http://www.libertyunderattack.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Molinari%20on%20Public%20Property.jpg">

Does anyone in who talks about anarchy also talk about how to get from point A where we are now to point B where they think we should get to i.e. anarchy?