Freedomain Radio

I am new to this website and somewhat new to the ideas behind anarcho-capitalism, so please forgive me for not knowing the anarcho-capitalist answers to these questions. 

Basically my question is this:  What right do you have to the land that you own?  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?  Seems like because nothing can legitimize your ownership of your land, society does have a right to it, and society does have a right to tax you for it.  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?

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?

Is there a way I can move this from DRO model to General Anarchism?  It seems it would fit better in that category.

so who decides where the community starts and stops(geography? ethnic make up? culture? etc? ) and what group in the community decides what the taxes are and what they are to be used for?

also you seem to be saying because the original owner can not be uncovered that a community(that can not truly be defined and that also has no connection to the original owner) has a right to be partial owners of the land, is that right?

Let me just throw some concrete examples out there.

There is a tree in the middle of a forest and nobody lives around here for miles. You cut the tree with a nearby rock and make a staff out of the wood. I think you would agree that I am the sole owner of this staff. Furthermore, you can still suppose somebody else planted that tree a long time ago. Without any proof that this tree belongs to anybody else, how can you, someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of my staff, have the privilege to the fruits of my labor? Similarly, land cannot be proven from whom it was stolen from way back when.

Tylos:

Basically my question is this:  What right do you have to the land that you own?  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?  Seems like because nothing can legitimize your ownership of your land, society does have a right to it, and society does have a right to tax you for it.  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?

 First, this is a self defeating proposition.  If people do not have the right to own land, then speaking of the original owners is impossible.  As people don't have a right to own land, they didn't own the land either.  Second, you are confusing society and government.  Society and government are different.  Society is an aggregation of people.  Government is a group of men with guns.  Even if society had a right to the land, that would not mean that government did.  Thirdly, if there were original owners of the land who were killed, who killed them?  In the US, the group that killed and drove off the Native Americans was the US government.  It seems that the one group that should not own the property of a victim is the criminal.

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?

So, why are you proposing this?  Your position seems to be that the government should own all the land and only rent it out at unreasonable prices (taxes).  In addition, they should own not only anything produced by the land, but anything produced by any person (any income of a person, any profit of a business, any sale of anything.)  In effect, the government owns not only land, but people. By proposing government you are creating, not opposing, a monopolistic owner who can charge any unreasonable price.

Hi Tylos,

I know what you're getting at. I don't like the word "right" either because I think to have a "right" to something implies that it's being granted to you through some higher authority. The basic difference between a Libertarian and an Anarcho-capitalist is that Libertarians believe in property rights - that the government should use the threat of violence to ensure that property (in the form of land, goods, patents, etc) is not stolen. I disagree with this idea because what if a person owns little to no property? He is then forced to pay taxes to ensure that the rich property owners have their land and ideas protected! We can see how some of the huge corporations are propped up through the government especially with patents: imagine how cheap a (ripoff) iPod would be if they weren't patent protected? And look at the bagless vacuum cleaner, all of a sudden the patent expires and they become dirt cheap!

The free-market solution to this problem is simply that people need to pay for the protection of their property. In an an-cap society, there would undoubtedly be an almost limitless number of private security companies that you could hire to do this for you. Similarly with intellectual property, businesses would develop ways of protecting their innovations if they felt that it was cost effective.

So I agree with twistedbydesign that your "right" to property is based on your ability to defend and protect it. And how do you get to own the land in the first place? Well, if you're the government, you just turn all imperial and seize it by force from anyone smaller and weaker. If you're honest, you save up and buy it from someone else, or, when the government goes up in flames you stake a claim to some of that "public" land that's just being wasted at present.

I really don't think it would ever come to a situation where one guy owns all the land in the world. Or even a significant amount for that matter. Firstly, how would he get the money to buy the whole world? Secondly, imagine the costs involved in trying to protect it! He'd have to set up an army-like security force to make sure everyone is paying their rent and not damaging his property. If he started charging too much for rent, the people would revolt. They'd bribe his security force, have standoffs, build walls, etc. It would be a complete and utter logistical nightmare!!

Well, I hope I've helped with your questions. Look forward to hearing your thoughts,

Jess

 

Jess:

I really don't think it would ever come to a situation where one guy owns all the land in the world. Or even a significant amount for that matter. Firstly, how would he get the money to buy the whole world? Secondly, imagine the costs involved in trying to protect it! He'd have to set up an army-like security force to make sure everyone is paying their rent and not damaging his property. If he started charging too much for rent, the people would revolt. They'd bribe his security force, have standoffs, build walls, etc. It would be a complete and utter logistical nightmare!!

Slightly off topic, but this reminded me of the South Park episode (506) where Cartman buys his own amusement park to keep everyone out so he never had to wait in line for rides. The analogy is that Cartman values not having people in his park so he has to barter off some of that perceived value to keep the park running for his personal pleasure. Eventually he needs to hire maintenance and security guards; to pay for the work he has to start letting a few people into the park to charge admission. In the end he still has to hire more and more people and has trouble covering his expenses and lets more and more people into park until it becomes filled with people and he has to wait in line again.

So I agree with Jess, it would be a nightmare. This person would probably end up having to sell and barter some land to other people for goods and services because the demand would be so high by others to establish some ownership.

Sometimes a cartoon can say something in a way that a thousand words have a hard time matching. Wonderful story.

I wonder why so many people do not 'try out in their heads' the things they say. Isn't it kind of normal to envision how people react on a given situation ? We all know how people are, we meet lot's of them every day, we are a person ourselves, so why not run a simple simulation in our head ?

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?

I don't think that there's such thing as a "reasonable" price.  If something is sold at a certain price, it is only done because both parties agree that they are better off after the transaction.  If the price is too high, then the seller walks and the buyer is stuck with extra inventory.

In your hypothetical situation, the person that owns all the land would extract a lot of value from the land that he lived on (say, Albuquerque), but he would extract far less value from pieces of property that he wouldn't use (say, Burma).  Without any doubt, we can say that he would value the money that he could get from selling Burma more than he would value the mere thought of owning something that he has no use of.  So he would sell the land to the highest bidder at a, by definition, reasonable price.

Through a free market, Richy McRichpants would distribute his unused property to the highest bidders (read: the people who value it most).

All this is done naturally without a coercive government taking and distributing in an effort to buy votes. 

afruff23:

Let me just throw some concrete examples out there.

There is a tree in the middle of a forest and nobody lives around here for miles. You cut the tree with a nearby rock and make a staff out of the wood. I think you would agree that I am the sole owner of this staff. Furthermore, you can still suppose somebody else planted that tree a long time ago. Without any proof that this tree belongs to anybody else, how can you, someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of my staff, have the privilege to the fruits of my labor? Similarly, land cannot be proven from whom it was stolen from way back when.

This is a subject that I have given a considerable amount of thought.  Twenty years ago, I met a man by the name of John Kelly, who wrote several treatises on the subject of non-governmental economics and land use.  He had built on the theories of Henry George and the Single Tax movement.

There is a difference between 'property' as defined by that which starts with your own body and expands to include the products derived from the use of your body (and mind!) and 'property' as defined by the land which we all found ourselves standing on (once we could stand up!).  The latter 'property' has no connection to any individual's industry except as raw materials.  The theory goes, since it was not produced by an individual, no individual has the right to claim it as theirs exclusively in the way your staff can be, being directy traceable to the effort of an individual.

While the 'state' does not exist, an argument can be made that there is this qualitative difference in property.  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? 

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).