92 All physiotherapy is theft

Physiotherapy’s claim to the special privilege that it derives from its work, stems from two rights: firstly, its right based on occupation — that it was the first group to formalise a legitimate approach to the physical therapies — and, secondly, its right based on its labour. Both of these claims, though, have been shown to be spurious, most notably through the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) ^[1]. Proudhon is known for popularising the belief that we should be skeptical of all forms of government and social hierarchy, and for writing a book titled War and Peace, that Leo Tolstoy used as the title for his later work in honour of Proudhon. But Proudhon is most famous for coining the phrase, ‘All property is theft’.

Proudhon asked how it was possible for someone to ‘own’ something. Claims on the basis of being a founder or first occupant are problematic because they demand everyone else’s consent. If a hundred people settle a new uninhabited island, for instance, they should, in theory, all acquire a one-hundredth share. But what happens when a baby is born, or an invading force comes and overcomes the settlers? Is the land divided evenly again? Simply being the occupant of a territory, therefore, cannot confer ‘ownership’, but rather the right to be the temporary ‘tenant’, or user of a territory or some resource that we all have an inalienable share in common. We are justified in using the sun and the moon, fresh air, land and water, thoughts and ideas, customs and ways of living, as long as we also guarantee their use for others.

But claims to ownership on the basis of our labour are also problematic. If I labour in a river to catch a fish, do I own the fish? Do I own the river? If I make a chair, is it mine? Perhaps, but only if your labour was the only labour that made the wood, the tree it came from, the land it was on, and the resources it needed to grow (sunlight, bees, rain, etc.). You would also need to be the owner of the social system that supported you (the manufacturer of the saw you used to cut the tree down, the house you put the chair in, and so on). And if I claim ownership through my labour, what happens when I become idle, I lend my chair to someone else, or I rent out some of my land to other users? Do I cede ownership to them? And how do we redistribute resources if people claim to own something because they laboured on it a hundred years ago?

In both cases, Proudhon argued that all claims of ownership amounted to theft, and that all things are only ever borrowed. People have a right to the added value they give to things through their labour and occupation, but this value should be based on justice for all, and laws known to everyone. Proudhon argued, therefore, for a society based on local contractual arrangements among individuals free to negotiate under conditions of justice. Such a system should never be coercive, centralised, or commodified, leading to an idea fundamental to the commons, that neither the state nor the market should have control over society.