Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s essay “What is Property? Property is Theft!” from 1840, where as a libertarian socialist, he was the first person known to call himself an anarchist, can be summarized as the following – the purchase of property is just a lineage of usurpations dated back to when unclaimed land was first settled. Competition for land claims leads to conflict, sometimes real theft, as with the American Indians, eminent domain where there is division over what is in the public good, and now the government can steal your land for a profit, and bitterness over satisfaction of ownership and buyer’s remorse, and because land is typically expensive and goes up in value in a good economy caused by anarchy, whereas supply-side economics causes most other possessions to fall in value, there is the understanding higher land prices lead to polarization in assets, and many non-productive people collecting rent on much of the real estate, hence the hidden intended contradiction of the sub-prime loan scandal.
Karl Marx originally liked Proudhon’s essay, as he stated that property is only as good as the goods and services it produces. He later criticized Proudhon, claiming the essay is self-refuting. While the socialists intended to tax and re-distribute, they extended their desire of equalizing assets to take land and re-distribute, which has the caveat of re-creating a world of 100% private property and the polarization of value and attempts to exploit others, which can vary from home invasion to polarization of assets, as the rich will attempt to buy land at cheaper prices, sell high at higher prices, knowing the middle class and the poor have less leverage in changing economic cycles, and are less likely to qualify for offers being accepted when the rich can pay 100% down, in many cases. In Tokyo, it is not unusual for 4 generations of people to live in the same home with a 90-year mortgage. But anarchy means the possibility of a perpetual good economy where the poor and middle class can buy land with banks starving to give out loans (and house fabrication gets cheaper, regardless of real estate value, possibly fewer loans needed by the lower income people), so those who say, as in Reagan days, lower taxes brings incomes closer together, it also brings access by all to property at a greater rate, but in a world where we are saturating finite space with more people, won’t this cause a skyrocketing in property values where new generations will be left out, unless privy to community property? There will always be an argument between those who say land becomes more scarce and expensive when more land becomes community property, and those who say community property takes property seekers off the market and therefore means lower demand means lower prices, so there might be some equilibrium between the two. But my hypothesis with graphs (below) show that because the democratic will of the people will divide a large amount of public property, half into private land, half into community land, in a world where pro-freedom versus anti-exploitation will always, I presume, be equal and opposite forces, higher supply at first means supply-side-economics reduces the cost of land, until a collapsed government and higher standard of living with technology, especially for anarcho-communists who know it’s good to be lazy when you increasingly delegate busy-work to machines. While private and community land values eventually increase with the squeezing effect of a growing world population (which can only be alleviated by space colonization, centrifugal space stations, super conducting super-colliding space planes sent to remote earth-like planets? Shrink people when you download their brains to chips?) the will of the anti-exploitation people to accommodate newborns will out-way the greedy. In essence, there is a way, not just with work, life experiences, material possessions, but property as well to create freedom without exploitation, and polarization of income/assets/ownership is contained. But shared property has a different legal definition than community property, which could apply to your residence and office space, but the streets and hallways are owned and operated by the community.
While the absence of taxation through International tax exemptions, and a tax revolt, will favor the poor and middle class, as the dirty little secret is the rich rarely pay taxes because of International tax law, the value of real estate that increases and transcends time in different cycles can be an impediment for those of us that want to make everyone free and end exploitation, while bringing income and assets closer together. There will be a need to lobby politicians and replace them with anarchists who will not just sell government land to private interests, but create community or shared property where anarcho-communist “kibbutzes” will allow those who can be verified to be of low means can qualify for residency and employment, no rent charged, only a percentage of upkeep and utilities. Some land can be and is already forfeited, as to squatters, but in the same way statist capitalism funds statist socialism, the same holds true in a stateless society, only the anarcho-communists will have to work and raise capital to compete and accumulate private-as-community property, causing equilibrium against those who sell land to private sector interests, often out of greed. For those who don’t respect community property, there will be a need by the community to sanction them or possibly evict them. And again, work incentives will mean less as automation (eg. 3D printers that produce everything dirt cheap) will lead to increasing obsolescence of human labor.
Anarcho-communists should be advised that collectivism, which historically leads to blood-shed and mutually-shared poverty, only will cause history to repeat itself as right-wing vigilante elements will retaliate against collectivists in a stateless society, where even though you will have privatization of the public sector, there will be little jail space and therefore incarceration will not be a dis-incentive. The transgression into a peaceful, productive society is imminent, with my proposals for leaderless anarcho-capitalism (peer-to-peer digital nihilistic networks) and anarcho-communism with voluntaryism. In the same way Marx said capitalism is the only mode of production that creates an economic surplus, and capitalism has historically been used to fund socialism in a statist society, when the state dies, there will be harmony between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, but like between kibbutzes and traditional villages in Israel, until techno-anarchy, the economic surplus created by machines, fuels the basic needs, wants, and desires of humanity. The anarcho-communists, until then, can use capitalism to make the worth of real estate only as good as the goods and services it creates to purchase more real estate without collectivism.