Property is theft. –P.J. Proudhon
Property is Liberty. –P.J. Proudhon
Property is impossible. –P.J. Proudhon
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. –Ralph Waldo Emerson
Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction “property” covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts attached for maximum clarity.
“Property1 is theft” means that property1, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.
“Property2 is liberty” means that property2 that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people’s interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other’s toes; only when rules of the game declare clearly “This is mine and this is thine,” and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.
“Property3 is impossible” means that property3 (= property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties1 and properties3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle*. He also forsaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.
It is not averred, of course, that property2 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most libertarians – especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand – is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, “Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?” If it be the former, it is property2 and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.
Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 767-68
*The SNAFU Principle is a sociological notion popular among Discordians. In its simplest form, it states that Communication is only possible between equals. In a hierarchy, people inevitably distort the truth when dealing with their superiors, in order to curry favor or escape punishment. As a consequence, said superiors operate from an increasingly distorted view of the world, resulting in bad decisions.
SNAFU itself is a military acronym for “Situation Normal, All Fucked Up”.
I'm pretty sure the Randian conception of property is neither (1) nor (2), rather than being a conflation of the two.
Sigh. Apparently Proudhon had an IQ below 70, since, for him, the property that was "liberty," was "liberty *because* it as "theft."
My recent post Individualities and Collectivities – Rights and Strengths
To be fair to the unfair, Wilson and Shea's interpretation of Proudhon's trialogue is neither unique, novel nor interesting. I must admit that I winced myself when I read the boring jab at Rand and Rothbardian/Konkin-esque interpretation of Proudhon.
On the other hand, Wilson and Shea have taken their place in a long and curiously venerable line of self serving interpretations of Proudhon. Though I don't think Wilson or Shea would be shocked by or disagree with the notion of "the property that was 'liberty,' was liberty *because* it [i]s 'theft.'" On the contrary, by my lights, that is what they are implying in this appendix zain.
So beyond the historical significance and curiosity of this 1975 expression of an early left libertarianism, there is an important observation and prescription that cashes out all of the youthful, line in the sand, polemics:
1. The observation of the SNAFU Principle – that Communication is only possible between equals. Which stipulates a precondition for game and rules construction and identification.
2. The italicized prescription, *and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it*. Not only can we critique and articulate the "rules" inside the "game", but we can also critique and articulate the game itself. We can stand inside and outside of the game.
My recent post Photo
As long as we're all griping: the "not merely being French" gag is annoying; and Emerson actually said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (and was in any case referring to consistency across time, not at a time).