Freedomain Radio

DDFM:

Loonie:

Persons acting on their own initiative can do things that increase the value of the land around them.  Do the people on that land have the 'right' to claim that increased value for their own?

What do you think?

Would they have planted gardens, built fences, and cut the grass if they thought that they didn't own it?

Without secure property rights, there is no incentive to better your property (and hence yourself).

Oh, absolutely!   The gardens, fences, and grass are totally their property and they should reap the full benefit from them.  I'm just saying that at some point the future stateless society would be served better by recognizing the difference between 'land' and 'property'.  Much discussion could be had devising those methods.

We need to get there first, though.  While the state still wields power, the fine points are moot.  It's just that if we refine the model in preparation, we can make the transition more efficient.

I welcome any thoughts about this.

Tylos:

If someone owned all the land in the world would it not be reasonable for society to reclaim a portion?  Or would it be fairer for everyone to rent the land out at an unreasonable price?

Let's just examine how a normal person would manage all the land in the world (in a world without violence). If he doubles the prices he demanded, people would double and tripple up in apartment room and boards, leaving, 50% of the houses unoccupied. The landlord of all landlords would not be able to collect rent on vacant apartments, and would still have to pay upkeep and so on. His revenue would not increase, but his expenses would, a net loss. Such a landlord would have an incentive to keep every parcel of land occupied so the maximum rent would be the marginal value of the land and real property to it's intended use. It would also be reasonable to assume that such a person would be so rich that he would not be very aggressive in seeking the highest bidder for his lands, and may even use a vast portion of his income to improve the lives of many of the poorest amoung the world population as so not to incite a violent revolt. He would have every incentive to be fair, equitable, and even generous in his management of the world's real estate. On the downside such a powerful person would undoubtable attract many of the worst in society to try to leach off his success, so if he were virtuous he would also have incentive to distribute land amoung many different people.

What right do you have to the land that you own?

Property is determined by labor, and most people eventually end up agreeing that unowned/permanently unused property becomes owned by by who eventually ends up using it the most. The problem with "land" is that it's a nebulous concept that people never really define. If you're asking "what right do you have to the dirt you're standing on" I would say "none, unless you worked it somehow." But ultimately, most people mean more than just the dirt, they actually mean the spacial area the dirt is on and around. Space has to be a commons since anything occupying space forms forms an association on some level with everything else in the universe, especially the immediate space around some particular area, wasn't created/is uncreatable, and becomes permanetly unused when you leave it for good. So it seems giving someone "ownership" of a particular portion of spacetime is as nonsensical as saying you can literally own a radio frequency or an abstract idea. Basically, you can own some material, but you can't own space.

hope that helps clarify some of it.

isn't It only yours because the originally owners were killed by someone who sold it to someone and so on until you took ownership of it?

Not always, sometimes it was legitmately homesteaded like the original english colonies (before the white people went apeshit on the indians.)

Since the resources that you produce often come from the land, for example farm goods, doesn’t society have the right to tax you there also?

That's essentially the point Hoppe makes about Fuedalism, that the king was just sort of charging rent for usage of his land, and so there wasn't anything innately wrong with how he raised money until they began taxing people.

Joel Davis:

That's essentially the point Hoppe makes about Fuedalism, that the king was just sort of charging rent for usage of his land, and so there wasn't anything innately wrong with how he raised money until they began taxing people.

He can just call the tax rent and it is ok? What I understood about Hoppe is that comparing feudalism to democracy, he prefers feudalism, because the king as owner wants to preserve the value of his land when he passes it to his heir. He is not going to mess it up that badly. He is not a fan of feudalism, he just finds it preferable over democracy (who pass it on to the opposition and loot as much as possible in their term). The way he got his land is through violent conquer and therefor it is wrong.

I think he also said he rather be a black slave on a cotton plantation than a a prisoner in a gulag. At least your slave owner wants to exploit you for your labour and does not want to mess you up to badly. Under Stalin and Hitler they did not even want to exploit you. The victim asking:"Do you want me to work long hours for little reward under coercion to make you a lot of money?" was bluntly answered with:"No, we just want you to die"

So Hoppe has a weird but interesting property of trying to select the best option between two evils. He talks about it in an entertaining way.

pcrs:

He can just call the tax rent and it is ok?

That's the jist of it. (video of his "parasitism & the origin of the state" lecture, begins at 7:50 and wraps around to the first bit of the next video)

pcrs:

What I understood about Hoppe is that comparing feudalism to democracy, he prefers feudalism, because the king as owner wants to preserve the value of his land when he passes it to his heir. He is not going to mess it up that badly.

Well there are incentives to do that but it's usually when you can alienate yourself from the consequences of the action and have significant sway in the organization that you run into that problem. That's why major corporations don't go under, because you may be CEO but the board and your subordinates might want to keep their positions so they'll work against you.  Buddhagem made a so-so video on how dealing with communal property (which the democratic state is supposed to be) can emulate most or all the benefits of private property.

Joel Davis:

pcrs:

He can just call the tax rent and it is ok?

That's the jist of it. (video of his "parasitism & the origin of the state" lecture, begins at 7:50 and wraps around to the first bit of the next video)

Ah, a hypothetical state in which everyone out of their free will comes to the monarch for questions regarding justice. I thought it was about real feudal states.

pcrs:

Ah, a hypothetical state in which everyone out of their free will comes to the monarch for questions regarding justice. I thought it was about real feudal states.

Well the point still stands. I think he was just talking in hypotheticals so he could create a clearer scenario to illustrate the point he was trying to make. The voluntary portion is just in dealing with matters of conflict resolution, but I was referencing specifically the idea that the feudal tax is a rental payment. The payments being "rental payments" isn't a precondition of the scenario, that's him illustrating all the ways he the feudal society meets his criteria for a "natural order" without further qualification. He dwells on the subject of feudal taxation a bit in the next video though, so I'd encourage you to watch a bit of the first few minutes to get more context on what he means by the first portion.

He extends it from a natural monopoly to an exclusive monopoly. With the natural monopoly he was just a legitimate owner charging rent.

I'm not sure were you are getting at, I would argue that in practice kings got their territory through conquest and violence and can therefor never be called legitimate owners. It's sounds like Robert Nozick's immaculate conception of the state, which never happened and was also hypothetical.

pcrs:

I'm not sure were you are getting at,

I said in passing that hoppe said taxes and tributes paid to the king in feudal society were basically rental payments, and you said that's not what he said, so I'm defending the comment even though is was tangential.

pcrs:

I would argue that in practice kings got their territory through conquest and violence and can therefor never be called legitimate owners. It's sounds like Robert Nozick's immaculate conception of the state, which never happened and was also hypothetical.

 

I wouldn't disagree, which is the crux of why I took issue with feudal taxes being called rental payments.

Ok. i see many problems with some of the ideas in this thread regarding how one comes to acquire the 'right' to property in the first place. in bold writing are the most common answers to the original question and underneath them are some problems which would need to be overcome before this would work. dont get me wrong, i am not against property rights but i feel things such as who owns and controls valuable natural resources is very important and would like everyone who believes in the legitimacy of the "first come first serve' or 'homesteading' principle to examine it a little more closely and address the logical flaws i have found with regard to putting it into practice. please dont point me in the direction of any podcasts on property rights because ive listened to them all and non of them address any of the issues i have pointed out below.

1. Un-owned land turns into property when someone labours on it and ceases to be property when it has not been used for a long period of time

- If i stake a claim over a forest and cut down a few trees every now and then for firewood do i own the forest?

- If i own a piece of land and have done so for some time but then decide i will no longer perform any labour on it (because i would prefer it to be a wild or natural habitat  to enjoy a walk through every now and then for aesthetic purposes) does this give someone else the 'right' to stake a claim to it if they can make use of it?

- If i own a piece of land and decide to move overseas for 30 years and not rent it out but just leave it as it should i come back expecting to still own my land?

- If i see a beautiful beach that has been used recreationally by people for hundreds of year but no-one has built anything on it or done any maintenance, can i then go and build a fence around it and start charging money to anyone who wants to continue to use it? can i threaten to shoot anyone who encroaches upon my newly acquired property 'right'? if no-one has the right to do this then would this land be considered un-owned or common land?

2. Property rights arise from one staking a claim to a property and being able to defend it

This one i find particurly absurd since its pretty much gives the rights of the property to whoever can overpower the current owner and take it by force. so i might own a mansion on a big piece of land but if im a weakling or unable to hire security guards to protect it then anyone can come and take it from me and then they technically own the property. even my security guards might decide theyd rather own the property than hire their services out to protect it and just take it from me and kick me out on the street. then a bigger private army might come and take it from them.

3. The property belongs to the person who can make the most/best use of it 

So if i want a to own property just to look at for my own enjoyment does this give someone the right to take it from me they are going to use it to build a factory or raise animals to be sold for food?

4. Property rights actually exist under any circumstances

I thought 'rights' in general did not exist. where do these rights come from? until someone can actually explain this to me ill assume that the right to own and do as thou wilt with a piece of land depends on whether they can physically maintain ownership of the land. in other word whether they can keep it in their possession by force if necessary. for example, if a small home owner had his property on a piece of land that a large business wished to own for business purposes what is to stop them just sending in their hired goons and taking the property from him. is there something he can show them like a piece of paper which says that he has the 'right' to that property by authority of anyone other than himself?

Hello all.

As an anarcho-socialist (mutualist, more precisely), I see a contradiction in the belief of absolute property rights. As another user said, possession is 9/10ths of the law. We should be careful about defending non-person property when a reasonable man (or woman) would object. After all, it is the state which claims ultimate authority over property. Unfortunately, when I visit Mises.org and other market forums, I find myself in the minority when I bring up this point: there is no natural rights to property, and indeed individual property ownership can sometimes be unjustified.

My opinion resembles David Friedman's. I believe laws will be won on the market place. Social anarchists and individualist socialists will hotly dispute property that they find unjustifiable, as should an anarcho-capitalist if a reasonably-wealthy man claims ownership over land he's not even seen. So a property owner should think twice before entrapping me in his field of private possessions, or claiming sole ownership over the only water hole in the immediate area, because he will have to deal with the consequences of vandalism and perhaps even an insurrection from his workforce. His defense agency or association will start requesting even more money for its defense. The more despicable his use and ownership implies, the more he would have to rely on defense. Compounded to this reality will be his defense/association's public image. Chances are after a certain period of time you will see different levels of insurance: the cheapest will be for small homes, and the most expensive will be for commercial property that you're not using. Few will deal with anything more.

Some who hold onto the notion of "natural rights" will decry this as wrong, but I think it's a lot more reasonable than "first come, first service." Individuals are asserting themselves as a replacement for the state. They should be challenged.

sven:

address the logical flaws i have found

I think you give yourself a bit too much credit there, Sven.

1. Un-owned land turns into property when someone labours on it and ceases to be property when it has not been used for a long period of time

- If i stake a claim over a forest and cut down a few trees every now and then for firewood do i own the forest?

No, though one might reasonably argue that you own the trees you cut and the resultant firewood.

- If i own a piece of land and have done so for some time but then decide i will no longer perform any labour on it (because i would prefer it to be a wild or natural habitat  to enjoy a walk through every now and then for aesthetic purposes) does this give someone else the 'right' to stake a claim to it if they can make use of it?

That I can't predict.  A mutualist or socialist would likely say yes, an ancap probably not.  I suspect in practice it would emerge from common law.

- If i own a piece of land and decide to move overseas for 30 years and not rent it out but just leave it as it should i come back expecting to still own my land?

Absentee landlordship.  Same as above.

- If i see a beautiful beach that has been used recreationally by people for hundreds of year but no-one has built anything on it or done any maintenance, can i then go and build a fence around it and start charging money to anyone who wants to continue to use it? can i threaten to shoot anyone who encroaches upon my newly acquired property 'right'? if no-one has the right to do this then would this land be considered un-owned or common land?

I'm inclined to say no.  Again, mutualists, socialists and ancaps are likely to have divergent takes on the matter.

2. Property rights arise from one staking a claim to a property and being able to defend it

This one i find particurly absurd since its pretty much gives the rights of the property to whoever can overpower the current owner and take it by force. so i might own a mansion on a big piece of land but if im a weakling or unable to hire security guards to protect it then anyone can come and take it from me and then they technically own the property. even my security guards might decide theyd rather own the property than hire their services out to protect it and just take it from me and kick me out on the street. then a bigger private army might come and take it from them.

Very Stirner-esque, yes.  But if you think about it, a lot of property comes down to what you can defend from the world.  However, I doubt most of those who hold this view actually advocate the type of society you have portrayed here.

3. The property belongs to the person who can make the most/best use of it 

So if i want a to own property just to look at for my own enjoyment does this give someone the right to take it from me they are going to use it to build a factory or raise animals to be sold for food?

Not per se, but again you're delving into disputed territory, pun intended.  This one strikes me as completely arbitrary and incompatible with any form of anarchism or free market.

4. Property rights actually exist under any circumstances

I thought 'rights' in general did not exist. where do these rights come from? until someone can actually explain this to me ill assume that the right to own and do as thou wilt with a piece of land depends on whether they can physically maintain ownership of the land. in other word whether they can keep it in their possession by force if necessary. for example, if a small home owner had his property on a piece of land that a large business wished to own for business purposes what is to stop them just sending in their hired goons and taking the property from him. is there something he can show them like a piece of paper which says that he has the 'right' to that property by authority of anyone other than himself?

This is the same position that you labeled "absurd" in #2.

To answer your question, however, there is nothing that will magically prevent rights violations if rights even, in fact, exist.  That is why there is nothing inherently absurd about #2, and that is why I think a body of common law will arise between competing organizations to settle precisely the types of potential disputes you've listed here.

Hi Sven. I noted that you had a problem with protection being part of property ownership. Calling something a right implies that one will protect it. If someone is stronger than you they can surely keep you from speaking, but I maintain that you have a right to speak. It is not required of me, but I would be willing to defend your right to speech. I think a similar organization would exist for property. You wanna talk about the law of nature? That law is might makes right, but we aren't animals are we.