Question of Legitimacy

Legitimacy plays a major role in the determination of ethics, morality and rights. It is a method of knowing who is right/innocent in a certain situation. For example, in a situation where property is violated, the person who owns the property has legitimate authority (because of his rights) and the person violating it does not. The logical conclusion would be that the violator is guilty and should be punished. This sounds like a nice arrangement, but much like in their economic arguments, so-called legitimacists make up small scale situations and expect that this same situation can work as well with 6 billion people across the world as it does with 2 neighbours across the street. Such people include myself, communists, capitalists, socialists, democrats, constitutionalists, anarchists, and the list goes on. Especially democrats, but that is a story for another paragraph.

Legitimacy leads to a situation I call "The tragic mating between subjectivity and objectivity"; in this situation, either something made to find objective truths gives in to subjective opinions, or something that is subjective is used to find objective truths, or both. This is not to say that subjectivism is a bad thing in any way. Legitimacy is a fine example of this 'tragic mating': it gives in to subjectivism, and then legitimacists still try to use it to find objective truths. The state, a monopoly on the use of force, is, for instance, legitimate.
The masses project legitimacy onto the state (through being bought, reassured, censored, fooled and threatened) and this leads to anyone fighting against the state to be punished in one way or another. Being bought and reassured are two big factors here; people will always look for reassurance and an easy way to feed themselves, and these are two very easy ways to do it. Drawing conclusions here, when legitimacy is used to structure a human society, it will result in people seeking more security, paying that, which may now seem useless, but later we crave for it: our own freedom. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Ben Franklin said it right.

Legitimacy leads to democracy; one can see this, as when legitimacy is projected onto some authority, those who challenge that authority will likely be met with violent force by the people who view it as legitimate. Democracy (specifically majoritarian democracy) works in a similar way, where a simple majority wanting something can force its will on any minority. This such democracy leads to oligarchy, which leads to plutocracy, which leads to fascism. By logical expansion, it can be said that legitimacy is not a reliable method of structuring society and/or basing one's philosophy on, as it boils down to nothning but mob rule. What is worse, in this mob rule, the mob isn't even ruling for its own benefit.

What, then, is a more reliable method? Reciprocalism is its name! Reciprocalism merely says that 'what goes around comes around'. That is, one person has the full right to do to another, as that specific other has attempted to do to said person. No legitimacy, no authority, full justice and full liberty. There is no 'I am right, you are wrong', for right and wrong cannot be known to us. There is 'he did it to me, I can do it to him'. Reciprocalism is the best and most reliable way to find objective truths, if any exist at all.

Contract(ual) Propertarianism (CP)

One idea 'roaming' in my head is that of contract propertariansim. It is an idea of what physical property really is (apart from a cloud of molecules) and how to manage it. There are a few points around which CP revolves:

1. All property is common property in reality:

Technically true, philosophically false. When you think about it, one individual and his family/supporters cannot fight off billions of people, if they were to try and take his/her property. This is not an argument for democracy, it is reality. The bigger group has a better chance of subduing the smaller one. Therefore, all property really belongs to all of humanity.

2. A person is entitled to own that which he and the people around him have agreed to:

From point #1, we can conclude that all 'private' property is really socialist property, where the property is 'created' by a mutual agreement between individuals. Each individual views the ownership of his property and the property claims of others as beneficial to him, hence why the property claims become legitimate. They would be illegitimate otherwise. Property is now mutually beneficial and agreed upon, meaning everyone benefits. The socialist part of this is that the property claim is collectively 'judged'.

3. All property agreements are contracts; mainly social ones:

If property is created by mutual consent between individuals, then this means it is nothing more and nothing less than a contract. Maybe not a physical one, but a contract nonetheless. In an anarchist society, a contract must be purely voluntary. That means no compulsion to enter, no force to maintain, you can always opt out and those who are not in the contract are not affected by it. As soon as a contract is involuntary, it is null and void. Same goes for property contracts.

In a property contract, all individuals who view the property claim as mutually beneficial and legitimate have 'signed' the contract and agreed to stay off said property. However, those who have not 'signed' the contract are not in any way obligated to follow it, or consider the claim legitimate. They have not agreed to the terms of the contract and the property is still available to them. This is not how typical propertarianism has been defined, where a property claim is universally legitimate if the proprietor has acquired the property in a 'legitimate' way. But legitimacy is in the eye of the judge, or in this case, the individuals involved in the claim. I believe this is better than the judge being some macho philosophers, who say this and that is legitimate because of some mystical link between an ego and a cloud of molecules a distance away.

4. Contract(ual) propertarianism fits liberty better than most other types of propertarianism:

First reason, unlike most other forms of propertarianism, CP is not based on arbitrary philosophical and/or rhetorical claims. CP is based on an agreement beween individuals at the time of or after the property claim; not on a prescriptive judgement of what is legitimate by a few philosophers before the claim.

Second reason, CP does not invovle the threat of coercion or violence. Since CP is based on a voluntary agreement, from which all parties see benefit, there is no (need for) any coercion or violence. There is not even need for violation consequences: why would anyone violate a contract, which they signed, seeing benefit from folowing the guidelines of that contract? Unless it some naive Stalinist who wants to toy with people, agree to stay off their pasture land, and then trample on it to make them angry for his amusement, I don't see a reason for one to violate a contract like this one.

The only other type of propertarianism I would say is compatible with liberty would be egoist propertarianism. Although rather vulgar and violent, it was actually the foundation for contractual propertarianism, which is merely EP without violence, secrecy and disorder.

Principles

  There are some basic principles which are the drive behind the ideas of haudauctorism and should be made clear. These basic principles, the order of which does not matter, are:

Subjective Compulsion

  When something is said to be subjective, it is only true to the individuals which view it as true, false to those who view it as false and pointless to those who view it as pointless. Subjective compulsion is a principle which states that nothing is truly 'compulsory', because only the individual can decide what is a must and what can be set aside. When something is said to be objective it is true regardless of what any individual or group thinks: the existence of the sun is objective; opinions on pretty much anything are subjective.

  Basically, it means that no one should be compelled, forced or nagged to do things they do not feel like doing, whatever their reasons may be. That is to say, 'subjective compulsivists' should have equal opportunity and be judged in the same manner as and by objective compulsivists. 

Non-aggression

  The non-aggression principle is a very important, widely accepted and sometimes misunderstood concept. Non-aggression simply means that one person does not have the right, nor virtue to initiate violence against another person's body and/or fruits of labor unless in self-defense.

  This principle has been, at times, taken to a point where it becomes self-defeating. Some of the more vulgar right libertarians, for example, have applied this as an axiom which is to be followed at all times. If I was hanging from a flagpole on a high building and the only way to save myself was to break the window beside me and trespass, I would not be allowed to do it. I would be subject to punishment, because I have temporarily refused to see legitimacy in property rights. However, when the rights of life and liberty are at stake, the rights of property can and should be set aside, because, as the propertarians themselves have noted, property rights come from life and liberty rights.
The principle of non-aggression is therefore necessary, but insufficient for a free society.

Objective ethics

 Objective ethics are ethics which apply regardless of what an individual and/or a group believes. Killing, raping, stealing, pillaging and scamming are all activities which we see as bad. And this is objectively true as well. While the subjective and/or inter-subjective values can at times match the objective values, like in the example above, sometimes the inter-subjective consensus can simply be wrong. By the time people figure that out, the damages may already be done.

 That is why, when it comes to ethics, there is need for objective values which are true all the time. Non-aggression, self-being, self-love and love for others are all objective values which have been proven true. If these are ever abandoned, society could break down.

Self-Being

 Self-being, also erroneously referred to as ‘self ownership’, is a concept which states that an individual has full sovereign rights over their body. From these rights stem various other rights, such as property rights. 
But self-ownership is a logically false term and what is more, it causes great misunderstandings and controversies. The problem with self-ownership is that I do not own myself, I am myself. I cannot actually own myself or my body. Have I chosen, bought or received my body as a gift? Is one to imply that before I was born into (for the lack of better terms) my body I made a choice to get that particular body? No, I never chose my body; and I am certain that the person born with one eye, their heart upside down and one arm ¼ the size of the other has not been born that way with his/her consent either.

Out of everyone, my parents had the most control of the outcome of my body. Am I then owned by my parents? But even my parents did not have full and total control of the outcome of their love. So this means that I and my body are not owned at all, because we are not chosen to exist; my personality, for example, is unique, not bought, sold, gifted, homesteaded and/or handled in any other propertarian form. I am myself and I am my body, hence self-ownership is a useless logical fallacy and self-being is the root of liberty.

Natural Rights

 Natural rights are rights which man; woman and child are born with. In the case of religious folks, the closes idea is god-given rights. Whatever concept of natural rights is taken, a few things stand in common: inalienability, unconditional, they are given from birth, not contract and they are necessary.
Natural rights are necessary, because without them, one must take an egoist approach to rights. And while I agree with egoists in the large-scale, their concept of rights is not very sufficient to actually create rights. Some egoists have taken up the position that a person has no rights until (s)he signs a contract. Therefore, (s)he belongs to his/her parents until (s)he can sign a contract.
So if I stop a woman from throwing her baby into a fire, I am violating her property rights. Such a position is incompatible with the principle of Self-being and therefore not acceptable.

 Not to mention that such a concept of rights depends on ability. Hence, this is not really a right, but a privilege. If I did not have the means to sign a contract, I can’t have rights. People born with disabilities which hinder their ability to sign or understand a contract for their entire life will never get rights. Those who advocate this then also imply that if I am born a certain way, I am allowed to have rights and if I am not, then I can’t have rights. If ideas like this one are used to structure society, then all you will get is Auschwitz on one side and the Kremlin on the other. 
To avoid such ridiculous notions and situations we need to have a concept of inalienable rights which do not depend on abilities and/or age.  

Free association

 Free association is a concept and principle, which emphasizes the right of one individual to come together with other individuals, groups, contracts and/or constitutions and leave them without the use and/or threat of violence. If I want to trade this for that with him, then they should not try to stop me. This simple principle applied in the large scale is necessary, but might not be sufficient for liberty.

Self-Sufficiency

 Self-sufficiency is a concept which says that one should be able to do some things by oneself without outside interference and/or interaction. For example, I believe that each person should be able to produce the basic necessities required for life with minimum interaction with society and/or others. This requires that at least some of the means of production are available to all, either commonly or individually.
 When self-sufficient, each individual will be able to produce for him/herself and as Rousseau himself said, slavery will become impossible and “every one is there his own master”.

Universalism without adjectives

 The main quarrel between anarchists is the universal social structure. Will the large scale society be structured by anarcho-capitalist principles or will it be structured by libertarian socialist principles? I say that both parties have got it all wrong. Both sides must realize that libertarian socialism, anarcho capitalism and haudauctorism are all just philosophies and systems that some people like and other don’t. By no means capable of organizing large scale societies alone. 
The libertarian socialists must realize that the free marketer is not the enemy, and the free marketer would certainly allow libertarian socialists to do their thing. 

 When the state is smashed, anarcho capitalists will go one way and the socialists will go the other. There will not and should not be any ‘join us or die’ religious rhetoric. The free marketers (even some of the vulgar ones) are more than willing to allow libertarian socialism to flourish. The problem here is universalism. And the only system that can in fact be universal is anarchism without adjectives. And anarchism without adjectives is basically all the core principles of anarchism.

Private Property Statism

All these capitalists are whining about how their property rights are legitimate and are there for a good reason. I disagree with such a statement. The first property rights were established so that one person can have command over others just because they were in the area he claimed. That is collectivism, and this is another reason why I believe capitalism is standing on a collectivist base. They put forward a completely strawmanned and misunderstood notion of the commons, and claim that the commons create a tragedy. What the capitalists are really criticizing is state-owned property and I agree with them on that. All property owned by the state rots away. Secret services are the only services that the state can be efficient at.

When the state owns property and lets people use it, they project legitimacy onto the state; the people believe that the state will take care of everything and they abuse the resources. This does not happen and has never happened with true common ownership of the means of production. In the real commons, nobody has a claim over land. The people know that no one is managing the land. This will always result in a democratic or some other form of consensus decision-making progress, which will protect the resources from abuse.

The capitalists also claim that if I violate their rights of property then I forfeit all of my rights and they can do whatever they wish with me. So long as they cannot use me for their own selfish ends, I cannot walk on their claimed territory. The only way a capitalist can exclude people from property, and I do mean the only way, is if the capitalist uses a police force. Any police force, whether from the state or from the private sector is undoubtedly a statist organization. That police has a legitimate monopoly on the use of force over me, and if I attempt to defend myself, I do not have the right to, because I have 'forfeited' that right.
My response to this is that all rights are inalienable and at maximum you only forfeit the rights which you violate. If I violate your property rights then I forfeit only my property rights, and since I do not believe in property rights, I have no issue with that.
To get back on topic, that police now become a state. It is therefore concluded that private ownership of land can only be enforced in a statist manner, and is therefore incompatible with any form of anarchism, individualist and collectivist.

This does not mean that I am against workers owning the product of their labor or private ownership of houses. I see houses as objects to be owned and possessed using the principles in the manifesto. But I believe land and most means of production should always be held in common, regardless of how much labor was put forth to build them or improve them.

Wage Labor and Exploitation

Another detailed description of the wage system can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDEx18aK-xk

Typical apologists for capitalism make semi-false statements about how wage labor is voluntary and agreed upon by both employer and employee and how it benefits them both. They say that if the worker does not desire to work for a boss, he can start his own business. While this may be true in the long run, it is not how it starts.
In the capitalist system, the means of production (factories, land, mines, workplaces, etc.) are owned privately by a class or classes farther up the hierarchy. The members of these classes are called capitalists, although the middle class can in some cases be in the same positions.

In order to start your own business you must have sufficient means of producing the product you will sell. Where can you get means of production from? A capitalist is the only choice. You must pay the capitalist for a sufficient means of production to start your own business. Where in the world can you get the money to do so? There are four choices: you can work for a wage, you can rob someone and behave like a mob boss, you can take out a loan, or pay workers to build you means of production. Now in terms of logic, a loan and wage labor do have big differences, however, they are using the same principle: a capitalist grants a means of production to another individual, and in return he expects payment; once both have been satisified, the relationship can be brought to an end.
In reality, wage labor and loans are not that different in their basic logic. So I will treat them as the same thing. What this means is that in order for one person to become self employed, he must first exert labor for a capitalist. Taking into account inheritance, the individual can obtain money from his/her family, but soemone in the family must have worked for a wage in order to receive the money.
Paying workers to build means of production for you is really the same as wage labor.
So wage labor is a necessity in order for a capitalist society to start. That is, capitalism starts as a 'work for a boss or starve' deal. This may change over time as inheritance becomes the dominant form of starting income, but the means to this end are far from just. If you tell a girl to love you or starve, can you and the girl expect such a relationship to get better? The relationship falls apart. That is what happened to capitalism; the government grew big (yes, it might not have been directly the fault of capitalism, but the system allowed for it to happen), corporations started using the gov't to crush competition and poverty actually increased. The relationship is falling apart.

Exploitation in wage labor
----------------------------------

Now we go on to explain how wage labor is exploitation. Let us take a simple business relationship and look at its parts. We have the capitalist(s); we also have the workers who built the factor(y/ies); we have the workers who work in the factory; we have the power plant workers and owners who provide electricity, we have the truck drivers who drive the mass produced products to the retailer and/or store; we have the store clerks; and we can have various other institutions to which the business is in debt (banks, other businesses, lost investments, etc.).
Now, let us examine where exactly does this relationship go wrong. Now, we assume capitalist who owns the business has chosen the fourth option of paying workers to build factories. Now, in order to pay them, he must have money. He gets this money by selling the products which the workers in the factry made. There is no problem here and everyone mentioned above gets paid the full product of their labor.

There is, however one question? Where does the capitalist gain so much profits from? If everyone is geting the full product of their labor, then how come the capitalist accumulates so much profit? One way to do this is to deduct from the workers' pay by using his ownership of capital to justify that. Now capital by itself does not produce; it can only be used to produce. If the capitalist demands payment for capital then he really demands something for nothing or demanding that the workers pay him for the privilege to work. This is not justice in any realistic way you look at it. The capitalist can also demand payment for his ideas. Now, the most prominent market anarchists were against intellectual property; they must have had a good reason to hold that position. Personally, I do believe that a person should get something for his ideas, but the amount of profit he accumulates in modern capitalism for that reason is insane.
He gets the most out of the business, hence why he is on top ot the hierarchy. That is how a personality cult works. Just because you have come up with a great idea does not mean that you should get the most out of the business relationship. Stalin came up with a lot of ideas (most of them horrible) and he came on top. Heck, some dictators had good ideas and they came on top. But ideas are not an excuse unless the very person who came up with them labors along with his employees, which is not the case in the majority of situations.

There is one excuse that capitalists use all the time: risks. The capitalist risks all his money, therefore he should get profits. It is true that a capitalist risks all of his money, but does that really justify profiteering? I do not beleive it does. Take a window washer on a tall building for example. If that window washer makes a big mistake he falls and dies; if the capitalist makes a big mistake, he loses all his wealth. Yes the capitalist may starve, but unlike the window washer, he has the chance to try to get up. The window washer does not get that chance. It is true that the window washer is risking his life because of his nature and his choices, but the same applies to the capitalist and his wealth. The window washer makes a much greater risk than the capitalist. By the logic of capitalist risk-taking, the window washer ought to be paid a higher wage than the capitalist. I don't know a lot about economics, but that would be detrimental, no?
The capitalists are always jabbering about how they make profits and capital and the window washer does not. But if the window washer was paid higher than the capitalists, he would be making profits and capital. They are using circular-illogic. The capitalists take into account that the washer is paid higher and at the same time assume that they are getting paid higher. This is completely illogical thinking and it self-detonates.
I cannot see any way that the capitalist can make significant profit out of a 100% just wage system.