Freedomain Radio

nexalacer:

I think one of the most important parts of the homestead principle offered by Rothbard is that the land would be yours in a sort of vertical shaft from the upper stratosphere down to the center of the earth.

Then it's not a result of "mixing your labour" with something, and could only be a result of your presence, which favours the Georgian model which is very hard to institute without a state. 

I'm sorry, but I've forgotten the details of how he proved this (too much input in too short of time!), but he had a good logical proof of why it had to be this way.  I think he may have even dealt with a problem similar to the one you talk about concerning the drilling for oil.

Obviously I can't see this, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can you help me out?

The biggest problem will be how to go from this clusterfuck of a state land ownership system to a just system under market anarchy, considering much of the land today has been stolen, yet we can't steal in order to bring about justice because we can't know the exact details of all of the stolen land over the centuries of state rule.

How about "to each according to his need" Yes I agree it's a serious problem again I can't see a solution

But again, I think the beauty of the argument from morality is that these problems are not going to be solved by a small pocket of intellectuals (i.e. us), we just need to teach people that abolishment of the current system is the just thing to do, and solutions to these problems will be found by those we lead into Libertopia

 I've been an anarchist for years without being able to effectively express it as such, the property argument is the only thing I have any real trouble with, I can't make the leap from "entitled to the fruits of your body and labour" which seems obvious to "entitled to some resource forever because I got there first" which I just don't see. It's not even practical, you'd have to go back an awfully long time before you would find vacant land to "get ownership of"

Building a house would be "mixing your labor."  Planting gardens and vegetable plots, having any sort of livestock pen, or barn, or anything you might need for your own home would be "mixing your labor."  If you have these products on the surface, but the land doesn't extend down into the earth below or up into the sky above, there are two problems:

1. Where do you draw the line in a non-arbitrary way?
2. If the air or ground water is not yours in a manner that you can get restitution from those who pollute it, how could it possibly be considered "yours"?

I think these two were a part of his proof, but I'd have to read it again, and that might be a few days.

I think the "entitled to some resource forever because I got there first" thing is similar to what MK_Safi was talking about.  Basically, the idea of eternal property rights without constant mixing of labor is pretty impractical.  However, right now there is tons of vacant land that could be taken over as there are large, large tracts of government land... and since the government doesn't exist, that means it's vacant, correct?

Also, in a perfect world, everyone would have their own land, but perhaps in the infancy of Libertopia, there would be many renters and leasers until they were able to save enough capital to buy land that has already been homesteaded.  If there become vast tracts of available land, then prices for land would fall in many areas (obviously beach front property, hillside property, etc. would remain relatively high), leaving a lot of affordable land for the newly rich Libertopians.  

 

nexalacer:

Building a house would be "mixing your labor."  Planting gardens and vegetable plots, having any sort of livestock pen, or barn, or anything you might need for your own home would be "mixing your labor."  If you have these products on the surface, but the land doesn't extend down into the earth below or up into the sky above, there are two problems:

1. Where do you draw the line in a non-arbitrary way?
2. If the air or ground water is not yours in a manner that you can get restitution from those who pollute it, how could it possibly be considered "yours"?

I think these two were a part of his proof, but I'd have to read it again, and that might be a few days.

That's exactly my point, how do you "mix your labour" with the air, how do you "mix your labour" with the reef of gold a hundred metres below your  house or the "lake of oil" a thousand metres down. Another problem I just thought of is why would it only apply vertically?

I think the "entitled to some resource forever because I got there first" thing is similar to what MK_Safi was talking about.  Basically, the idea of eternal property rights without constant mixing of labor is pretty impractical.  However, right now there is tons of vacant land that could be taken over as there are large, large tracts of government land... and since the government doesn't exist, that means it's vacant, correct?

Except for a large part of that land it was stolen from somebody, you could argue that due to time passing that no one has any right to it anymore, I believe you would have a hard time arguing it wasn't stolen to begin with, I'm not sure how this effects the situation. 

Also, in a perfect world, everyone would have their own land, but perhaps in the infancy of Libertopia, there would be many renters and leasers until they were able to save enough capital to buy land that has already been homesteaded.

I have problems with homesteading and to a lesser extent with land lording IMO it produces power disparities that Stefan warns against, I can't see the error with the Georgian idea that if you have a right to exist then you have the right to exist "somewhere".

If there become vast tracts of available land, then prices for land would fall in many areas (obviously beach front property, hillside property, etc. would remain relatively high), leaving a lot of affordable land for the newly rich Libertopians.

Possibly, but it sounds like you're asking me to have faith that the problem will be solved. 

If it applied horizontally, then everyone would own everything, then we'd be in the same problem as a Marxist state.

If no one had a right to it (which is exactly what I was saying) it would be free for homesteading, as all land with no claim is.

If you have a problem with homesteading, what do you call the process of property acquisition?  And power disparities will always exist, the question is whether they are voluntary or not.... even in a land lord situation, you aren't forced to stay in a place where a land lord is abusing you.  Surely you wouldn't suggest that every single landlord in Libertopia would be an abusive land lord?

I'm offering my point of view with the idea that perhaps this problem is not as big of a problem as you think it is.  I mean, I fully understand that there are a lot of difficulties with how property rights would be applied in an an-cap world, but I'm not so sure it's something we should, or even can, worry about now, while there are thousands of people dying per day at the hands of the state. 

If you are willing to accept an anarchistic world view, I assume it's because you have a belief that the free market is able to solve the problems of the world much better than the government.  Not to say the solutions will be perfect, just that they will not involve the monopoly of force that leads to so many unnecessary deaths in the world.  That said, why draw the line for free market solutions to problems in such a way that property rights are not solved?

nexalacer:

If it applied horizontally, then everyone would own everything, then we'd be in the same problem as a Marxist state.

Exactly! That's my point. if you're not "mingling it with your labour" how can it be "yours" if you don't continue to "mix it with your labour" why does it stay yours. If it can be yours without "mixing it with your labour" why does this apply vertically but not horizontally?

If no one had a right to it (which is exactly what I was saying) it would be free for homesteading, as all land with no claim is.

Are you talking about land "owned" by the government? you'd have to demonstrate that time does remove the right of someone to land that was stolen from them, the only thing I can't think of is that if no one has the right to the labour of another then no one can inherit something. Not an acceptable solution IMO.

If you have a problem with homesteading, what do you call the process of property acquisition?

 I don't know that's my problem, I think it's the main problem with anarchy.

And power disparities will always exist, the question is whether they are voluntary or not.... even in a land lord situation, you aren't forced to stay in a place where a land lord is abusing you.  Surely you wouldn't suggest that every single landlord in Libertopia would be an abusive land lord?

You're obliged to live somewhere, or should I say if you exist at all then you exist somewhere, if all landlords charge you to exist, which seems logical since they are landlords how is that different from taxation.

I'm offering my point of view with the idea that perhaps this problem is not as big of a problem as you think it is.  I mean, I fully understand that there are a lot of difficulties with how property rights would be applied in an an-cap world, but I'm not so sure it's something we should, or even can, worry about now, while there are thousands of people dying per day at the hands of the state.

 I could be wrong but aren't all ancap arguments based on property rights, isn't it from property rights to ones on body that which from all else flows, IMO there needs to be a logical step from body rights to resource rights.

If you are willing to accept an anarchistic world view, I assume it's because you have a belief that the free market is able to solve the problems of the world much better than the government.

It could be that I don't believe that the government has any legitimacy other than that of the individuals within it, and that there is no such thing as collective rights, actually that is it, regardless of the advantages of the market in fact even if there are no advantages to the market, I think the state is immoral.

 

Not to say the solutions will be perfect, just that they will not involve the monopoly of force that leads to so many unnecessary deaths in the world.  That said, why draw the line for free market solutions to problems in such a way that property rights are not solved?

 Perfection is only possible if the outcomes are all known, eg on an exam. I'm not looking for perfection but I fear the unintended consequences of, in my mind, such a large unresolved issue. 

Podcasts #67 and 329 might be helpful, but I am not sure if I can answer the question of whether there is a logical step from body rights to property rights.

And here, there are arguments for ancap that aren't necessarily based on resource rights, though you are correct that they stem from body rights.  But body rights lead to the moral framework that Stef talks about in his book UPB, which is a moral reason for the dissolution of the state.

As with the questions around the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, it's not a question of whether or not there will be unintended consequences if it is abolished, it is a question of whether it should exist at all. 

nexalacer:

Podcasts #67 and 329 might be helpful, but I am not sure if I can answer the question of whether there is a logical step from body rights to property rights.

#67 was about body rights and I'm up to #250+ running through them sequentially so it will be a while before I get to #329. I don't believe there is a logical step and therefore absolute resource rights doesn't necessarily follow body rights, this is what given rise to the Georgian model which essentially requires some kind of state, I sort of used to be a Georgian but I couldn't figure out a way to limit the size of the "authorities" and after listening to Stef I now realise why.

And here, there are arguments for ancap that aren't necessarily based on resource rights, though you are correct that they stem from body rights.  But body rights lead to the moral framework that Stef talks about in his book UPB, which is a moral reason for the dissolution of the state.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that because we haven't solved resource rights we should keep the state. I haven't read UPB yet but is is on the way.

As with the questions around the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, it's not a question of whether or not there will be unintended consequences if it is abolished, it is a question of whether it should exist at all.

The state is different  from the problem of resource rights, yes it should be gone. IMO a logical framework for moral resource rights would deal a deathblow to the state, it's just a feeling I have.

Would adverse possession exist in a stateless society? How would it work?

jorgeben:

Would adverse possession exist in a stateless society? How would it work?

If that's addressed to me I'm not sure what you mean could you please expand your point? 

Where does property come from?  When I buy a sandwich, it becomes my property.  The ingredients are products of the earth, life forms that were killed-- wheat, lettuce, turkeys, mayo bushes.  Similarly, when I buy a computer, the minerals come from the earth, and the ingenuity comes from entrepreneurial spirit and the intellectual capacities of human beings.  All of those things are either directly tied to land or require land ownership secondarily to exist.  Therefore since property rights of things like food and diamonds are logically and morally valid as a whole, land ownership must also be valid.

Then where does land come from?  God?  Perhaps, but then why hasn't he called in his debts?  That must not be the case.  Land comes from the sun, when the proto-solar system was churning out planets.  Earth was thrice-fused to produce the heavier metals that enable complex life.  Certainly, that's a lot of effort, but since the sun is not a living organism, we can't purchase property from it.  Then I guess we have nothing to go on but UPB.  I'm totally winging it here, but if I discovered faster-than-light travel tomorrow, and traveled to a beautiful, earth-like paradise in another solar system, I should be able, at least in a morally neutral fashion, to colonize it (how much of it?  Here we must fall back on the Rothbardian home-steading, labor argument).  Suns and men are biologically different; indeed one of suns aren't even biological.  In the scenario of two men in a room, if one of the men is SUN and the other is ME, and I take some land from SUN, my property should be allowed to be reclaimed by any and all SUNs that want it.  Since suns aren't actively pursuing our property (at least not for a few billion years, when Sol becomes a red giant), in this case, the scenario is morally neutral.

That's my stab at it-- let me know if I totally hit a foul ball.
 

eliiswyatt:

Where does property come from?

Why does that matter. 

When I buy a sandwich, it becomes my property.  The ingredients are products of the earth, life forms that were killed-- wheat, lettuce, turkeys, mayo bushes.  Similarly, when I buy a computer, the minerals come from the earth, and the ingenuity comes from entrepreneurial spirit and the intellectual capacities of human beings.  All of those things are either directly tied to land or require land ownership secondarily to exist.  Therefore since property rights of things like food and diamonds are logically and morally valid as a whole, land ownership must also be valid.

You are operating from the existence of state mandated property system and deriving examples from that, if I have a need it is neither moral nor immoral to fulfil that need, it is the actions I take to fulfil my needs that are subject to moral judgement, call me thick but I don't see the logical step from body rights to resource rights, but if you are going to call me thick, prove it.

Then where does land come from?  God?  Perhaps, but then why hasn't he called in his debts?  That must not be the case.  Land comes from the sun, when the proto-solar system was churning out planets.  Earth was thrice-fused to produce the heavier metals that enable complex life.  Certainly, that's a lot of effort, but since the sun is not a living organism, we can't purchase property from it.  Then I guess we have nothing to go on but UPB.  I'm totally winging it here, but if I discovered faster-than-light travel tomorrow, and traveled to a beautiful, earth-like paradise in another solar system, I should be able, at least in a morally neutral fashion, to colonize it.  In the scenario of two men in a room, if one of the men is SUN and the other is ME, and I take some land from SUN, my property should be allowed to be reclaimed by any and all SUNs that want it.  Since suns aren't actively pursuing our property (for a few billion years, when Sol becomes a red giant, at least), in this case, the scenario is morally neutral.

That's my stab at it-- let me know if I totally hit a foul ball.

It isn't the matter where the land comes from, it's what happens to it afterwards, land is not like air in that (except in extreme circumstances) which all can use it and leave enough for everyone else, land gets used up, if you have a right to freely exist it makes no sense to say you can have no place to exist, this is the basis of the Georgian idea, which as far as I can see requires a state, which creates corruption.

 I don't think I called you "thick," or even made an allusion in that direction, but if I did, I apologize.  The last thing I want to do is insult you.

I'd say the air is "owned" by the sun as well, since it was created through the same fusion process.
If you don't own any property, then you you sure as hell don't have a right to live on anyone else's property, unless they grant it to you.  Just as I could homestead a cubic acre of air with a permanent air station, I can do the same on the ground.  Air is so plentiful that there is no need of a market for it on earth (except in terms of airspace for planes, ect.).  Land, on the other hand, is not, so the threshold is high enough that the market can get involved and generate profits.

 The sun bit is not really the core of the argument, merely speculation on my part.  This is my attempt at an actual proof:

Will my ability to own a sandwich be drastically different under a free market system?  I should hope not...  Physical property rights work extremely well as is, and minus the steps of taxation and regulation, they are completely morally neutral.  It is precisely that filling a need is morally neutral that having property rights must also be morally neutral.  If I steal property from an old woman or a tribe of Native Americans, that is clearly immoral, but if I homestead a plot of unused land with my crops, I am not infringing on anyone else's rights, and I haven't done anything wrong.  In fact, I'm creating productivity in the economy, which exerts a number of positive externalities on society as a whole.

If it's not an immoral action to own apples, then it must not be an immoral action to own an apple orchard, because it is impossible to have apples without any apple orchards.  Similarly, if I can own a kitten, I must be able to own a mother cat.  If it is morally permissible to own coffee, it must be morally permissible to own a coffee maker.  If I can own a car, I must be morally allowed to own a garage (whether or not I choose a DRO that prevents garage ownership is beside the point-- I can always leave my DRO).  If only some people can own apple orchards, say the State, or the ones elected by some kind of free-market, democratic union, then the moral rule is not valid because it is not universally applicable.

Furthermore, if it's not an immoral action to own an apple orchard, it must not be an immoral action to own the land in which the orchard is contained for precisely the same reason.  If it is morally allowed to own heroin, it must be morally allowed to own poppies.    If it is morally permissible to own poppies, it must be morally permissible to own a poppy field, and the land that poppy field is on, and the amount of water, CO2, and sunlight needed to sustain it.

Which is not to say that any of these things are moral per se, merely allowed-- morally neutral.

eliiswyatt:

I don't think I called you "thick," or even made an allusion in that direction, but if I did, I apologize.  The last thing I want to do is insult you.

You didn't, unless I was too thick to notice , it's just my humourous  attempt to say I don't have the answers, couldn't say I was ignorant without some sort of defensive attempt.  

I'd say the air is "owned" by the sun as well, since it was created through the same fusion process.

I would say that the Sun is a example of matter rather than an owner of it, I don't believe the Sun has intelligence, just like a company.

If you don't own any property, then you you sure as hell don't have a right to live on anyone else's property, unless they grant it to you.

That's the problem it couldn't be said that you have a right to exist if you can't rightfully exist somewhere, because existence requires you to exist somewhere. 

Just as I could homestead a cubic acre of air with a permanent air station, I can do the same on the ground.  Air is so plentiful that there is no need of a market for it on earth (except in terms of airspace for planes, ect.).  Land, on the other hand, is not, so the threshold is high enough that the market can get involved and generate profits.

My argument isn't that you couldn't homestead, my argument is with both the morality and practicality of the homesteading model.

 

The sun bit is not really the core of the argument, merely speculation on my part.  This is my attempt at an actual proof:

Will my ability to own a sandwich be drastically different under a free market system?  I should hope not...  Physical property rights work extremely well as is, and minus the steps of taxation and regulation, they are completely morally neutral.

It would be hard to find land in America that wasn't stolen from "homesteaders", it would be hard to find resources that haven't been forced from others, that is the nature of the state, the current model isn't an effective start for a moral environment.

It is precisely that filling a need is morally neutral that having property rights must also be morally neutral.

I can't see how that follows, as I can use an immoral action to fulfil my needs. Just as an aside what I am talking about is "resource rights" not property rights as a whole.

  

If I steal property from an old woman or a tribe of Native Americans, that is clearly immoral, but if I homestead a plot of unused land with my crops, I am not infringing on anyone else's rights, and I haven't done anything wrong.  In fact, I'm creating productivity in the economy, which exerts a number of positive externalities on society as a whole.

If your homestead has no impact on others then I'd agree, but can you say that.

If it's not an immoral action to own apples, then it must not be an immoral action to own an apple orchard, because it is impossible to have apples without any apple orchards.  Similarly, if I can own a kitten, I must be able to own a mother cat.  If it is morally permissible to own coffee, it must be morally permissible to own a coffee maker.  If I can own a car, I must be morally allowed to own a garage (whether or not I choose a DRO that prevents garage ownership is beside the point-- I can always leave my DRO).  If only some people can own apple orchards, say the State, or the ones elected by some kind of free-market, democratic union, then the moral rule is not valid because it is not universally applicable. Furthermore, if it's not an immoral action to own an apple orchard, it must not be an immoral action to own the land in which the orchard is contained for precisely the same reason.  If it is morally allowed to own heroin, it must be morally allowed to own poppies.    If it is morally permissible to own poppies, it must be morally permissible to own a poppy field, and the land that poppy field is on, and the amount of water, CO2, and sunlight needed to sustain it.

Which is not to say that any of these things are moral per se, merely allowed-- morally neutral.

There is no logical step that I can see from body rights to resource rights. If I own all the apples then you can't use them, if I own all the land where can you exist without my permission? If you answer "the sea" you're missing the point.

MarkIX:

I can't see how that follows, as I can use an immoral action to fulfill my needs. Just as an aside what I am talking about is "resource rights" not property rights as a whole.

If your homestead has no impact on others then I'd agree, but can you say that.

 If I use an immoral action to fulfill my needs, then it is immoral for me to own my ill-gotten gains, and they can be justifiably recovered by the use of force.  Similarly, if I trade for my goods in a morally neutral fashion, it must be morally neutral for me to own them.

Sure homesteading has an effect on others.  Think of the intellectual realm.  Thomas Edison developed the first incandescent light bulb-- in other words, he homesteaded the idea.  Like the imaginary planet I discover and develop, he discovered the idea of an incandescent light bulb, and he delivered on his discovery, mixing labor with his creativity.  His discovery hurt all the other inventors that were looking to develop a longer lasting, electric source of light, because they didn't think of it first, just like an entrepeneur "hurts" his competitors when he develops a more streamlined economic model.  These type of "hurts" are really net gains for society, and are not an initiation of violence on anyone, merely a missed opportunity caused by the greater speed or ingenuity of other individuals.

MarkIX:

There is no logical step that I can see from body rights to resource rights. If I own all the apples then you can't use them, if I own all the land where can you exist without my permission? If you answer "the sea" you're missing the point.

Nowhere.  You have a right to exist, moral or not.  However, if you refuse to get off of someone's property, you are infringing on their property rights, and they can use force to remove you from their property and put you somewhere else (probably in a DRO bond facility, where you pay for your upkeep, if you have nowhere else to go).  If someone owns all the apples, then they must own all the apple orchards and the land as well, right?  How was everyone stupid enough to allow such a monopoly to occur?  In such a circumstance, property rights become even more important, because in order to combat the apple monopoly, a small entrepeneur must use a plot of land to grow his own competing apple crop.  As people realize the monopolistic practices of the larger apple grower, they will switch to the smaller orchard, even if it means a small increase in price, because it will force the other company to become competitive (think of the push for people to shop at local businesses and eat local produce instead of going to Wal-Mart).

And you're right, my sun argument is pretty bogus; let's disregard that one.  I think the above is probably more promising. 

eliiswyatt:

MarkIX:

I can't see how that follows, as I can use an immoral action to fulfill my needs. Just as an aside what I am talking about is "resource rights" not property rights as a whole.

If your homestead has no impact on others then I'd agree, but can you say that.

 If I use an immoral action to fulfill my needs, then it is immoral for me to own my ill-gotten gains, and they can be justifiably recovered by the use of force.  Similarly, if I trade for my goods in a morally neutral fashion, it must be morally neutral for me to own them.

I was trying to make a point about your chain of moral causality does not necessarilyfollow

Sure homesteading has an effect on others.  Think of the intellectual realm.  Thomas Edison developed the first incandescent light bulb-- in other words, he homesteaded the idea.  Like the imaginary planet I discover and develop, he discovered the idea of an incandescent light bulb, and he delivered on his discovery, mixing labor with his creativity.  His discovery hurt all the other inventors that were looking to develop a longer lasting, electric source of light, because they didn't think of it first, just like an entrepeneur "hurts" his competitors when he develops a more streamlined economic model.  These type of "hurts" are really net gains for society, and are not an initiation of violence on anyone, merely a missed opportunity caused by the greater speed or ingenuity of other individuals.

Ideas are more like air than land two people cannot possess the same land at the same time understanding the land of someone else does not allow you to produce your own land.

MarkIX:

There is no logical step that I can see from body rights to resourcerights. If I own all the apples then you can't use them, if I own allthe land where can you exist without my permission? If you answer "thesea" you're missing the point.

Nowhere.  You have a right to exist, moral or not.  However, if you refuse to get off of someone's property, you are infringing on their property rights, and they can use force to remove you from their property and put you somewhere else (probably in a DRO bond facility, where you pay for your upkeep, if you have nowhere else to go).

If you have nowhere to go you'll be in a position where you can't exist without violating someone's property rights, I see it as a problem with a system when the primary right can interfere with the same primary right, if it doesn't mean that can you help me find where I'm wrong?

 If someone owns all the apples, then they must own all the apple orchards and the land as well, right?  How was everyone stupid enough to allow such a monopoly to occur?  In such a circumstance, property rights become even more important, because in order to combat the apple monopoly, a small entrepeneur must use a plot of land to grow his own competing apple crop.  As people realize the monopolistic practices of the larger apple grower, they will switch to the smaller orchard, even if it means a small increase in price, because it will force the other company to become competitive (think of the push for people to shop at local businesses and eat local produce instead of going to Wal-Mart).

And you're right, my sun argument is pretty bogus; let's disregard that one.  I think the above is probably more promising.

The apples was just an analogy, I don't have a right to apples I do have a right to exist, people can grow apples but they can't make more land. I was thinking that this might be a lifeboat scenario and I then I thought it wasn't but whilst I was typing about how it was different I realised I was simply restating the the same thing differently so it probably is, does it matter that it is a global lifeboat scenario?