Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
On Property On Property

08-24-2009 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
Isn't the problem with this theoretical model precisely that disputes will inevitably arise and there is no "legitimate" mechanism to resolve them. How do you reply to the "Hey, I was using that" defense or the well-known "Were not!" reply? Using "Dibs" to distribute a resource commonly held to be valuable seems somewhat farcical in itself.
People have come up with all sorts of mechanisms for establishing and displaying ownership. First, the very transformation of the land serves as notice that it is now owned. Then fences, signs, filing of deeds with independent firms (which, before we go there, do not need to be run by the state).

Quote:
There's a problem with using homesteading as the entire theoretical foundation of this model, and it's not just that the "age of homesteading" is over. In addition, it fails, on its face, to account for the modern idea of "wilderness"?
How so? Pretty much everything that is unowned is "wilderness". By definition, as far as I can tell.

Quote:

So states form when technologically advanced groups convince other people that it's just to form a larger collective? That's not a very compelling argument against the state.
No, it wouldn't be, if it weren't for the conquest, coercion and deception.

Quote:
And yet, one might argue that that's not an entirely incorrect model either.

I'm not unsympathetic to the general idea here, but I can't believe in an argument from evolutionary inevitability.
Argumentum ad ignorantium. I don't really care what you can't believe. What is a fact, is that homesteading maximizes the amount of natural resources put into the service of mankind, voluntary exchanges increase wealth while involuntary exchange decreases it, and costs and benefits have evolutionary impact, whether it is biological, cultural, or market evolution.

Quote:
It should be clear from the past few thousand years that the trend in human society is towards increasing central authority, not decreasing it.
Actually, this is false. The trend is nowhere near monotonic. There was a great decentralization in the wake of the collapse of the Roman empire, for example. The empire led to thousands of independent city states all over western Europe. Governments always tend to centralize, and they always either implode or are cannabalized by other governments. The ultimate in centralization is one world government, and if we get there, it will of course collapse and decentralize again.

Quote:
There are better arguments to be made for libertarianism/anarchism.
Perhaps. Where did I claim that any of these arguments are the best arguments?
08-24-2009 , 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
This is a good argument against Communism, and though Geolibertarians believe in a sort of Communism of land, I'm not certain this refutes their theory of "Single Tax". Because you don't have to check with every tribesman and every log cabin survivalist in order for one person to purchase land - you just buy it, and everyone receives teh monies. Unless I am way off base on how Geolibertarianism is applied or not understanding it in general.
At what price? There can be no prices in the case of communal ownership. This is the economic calculation problem.

Quote:
The problem I see is: Who decides what the land is worth? Who makes these payments? If you believe all land is communally shared, is it moral to sell it without the consent of everyone, and to compensate them with money? Etc. But I'm sure there is some free market way to determine the land value.
Yes, there is a free market way to determine the land value. The rents it generates. Which can only arise through ownership. And why would anyone put land into service if all they had to pay all the product to 6 billion people who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

It's absurd.
08-24-2009 , 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
One is only allowed to own the fruits of ones labour.
ahem ahem...
08-24-2009 , 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
How so? Pretty much everything that is unowned is "wilderness". By definition, as far as I can tell.
I was trying to reference a more modern idea of wilderness; an area that is set aside where humans are not to make permanent changes to the land. I claim an area as wilderness. Does that work as a claim for you? If not, how does it fail?

Moreover, if there are independent firms which can verify and enforce homesteading claims, why would there be any unclaimed land?

Quote:
Argumentum ad ignorantium. I don't really care what you can't believe. What is a fact, is that homesteading maximizes the amount of natural resources put into the service of mankind, voluntary exchanges increase wealth while involuntary exchange decreases it, and costs and benefits have evolutionary impact, whether it is biological, cultural, or market evolution.
I don't think this is a fact. I don't think you give anywhere near enough evidence to conclude, as a fact, that homesteading is a maximizer.

Moreover, evolution is not a maximizing process. And hey, it got us here, right? But that's almost missing the point. Your entire theory of "Dibs" is based on the fact that you can't conceive of an alternative. What's the difference?

I don't say I don't believe it because I can't imagine it. I say I don't believe it because I consider an argument from evolutionary inevitability to be unable to prove the claims you are making. Evolution need not be maximizing, need not be just, etc., etc. I don't see its relevance.

Quote:
Actually, this is false. The trend is nowhere near monotonic. There was a great decentralization in the wake of the collapse of the Roman empire, for example. The empire led to thousands of independent city states all over western Europe. Governments always tend to centralize, and they always either implode or are cannabalized by other governments. The ultimate in centralization is one world government, and if we get there, it will of course collapse and decentralize again.
I didn't say it was monotonic, I said there was a trend. Do you really dispute that?
08-24-2009 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
ahem ahem...
I feel the same way about my holler pic
08-24-2009 , 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
ahem ahem...
Fine fru'its' of ones' la'b''ou'r. Happy punctuation fascist?? Are you seriously complaining about the use of apostrophes in a thread full of anarchists?



Edit: Wait, Tom was quoting himself. OK, nevermind, I have no idea what's going on.
08-25-2009 , 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
One flaw in the geolibertarian position, as far as I'm concerned, is that it is absurd. Its implications are the we all have an equal share in the moon, or the sun, or some distant alien planet where intelligences vast and cool and unsympathetic have equal share of all the land on the earth. More down to earth, so to speak, is the implication that I have an equal share of the land of the Masai tribesmen, and they mine, etc. In short, it would be impossible to transform any land for productive human use, as it is physially impossible to get the permission of every human being (unanimous, no less), and without such permission, the transformation is "theft". In short, the idea can be discard as absurd and unworkable, not to mention leading to the mass death of humanity, an accusation that cannot be levelled at homesteading.
I think your objection comes from not making a distinction between ownership and control, which also seems to come up when we have more philosophical discussions about self-ownership. Just because we all have a share of ownership in the resources of this planet does not mean we all have a share in the control. A fairly simple solution is to simply auction off any natural resource that is discovered to the highest bidder, and split the proceeds evenly among all the people of the world.

This too is, of course, impractical, but doing it on a local level in more developed countries is pretty easy. And I do think it is at least as morally sound a position as "finders keepers", if not more so, and it would be more economically sound if anything (although the costs of this auction/distribution would probably be pretty high).
08-25-2009 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan776
I said "scarce."

I still don't see how your society "maximizes production." If someone wants to plants crops but doesn't own a field they can't, while someone else who owns a field can let the land lie fallow on a whim. If anything, a system of property rights creates artificial scarcity that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Another idea from the OP, that the people who aren't greedy, and wouldn't make greed a fundamental principle of their society, would never develop language or cooperation is very LOL. If anything, it was the rise of the state that let the immorality of greed fester among the populace and be codified in law.

And in which society do you think greed could run rampant and turn it into Haiti? Really??
Meh not to get wrapped up arguing in favor of AC but, first of all, I believe "maximizing production" is relatively speaking in respect to other forms of determining economic production. It is more complicated than someone just wants to plant crops and they can't therefore production is not maximized. you also have to factor in what rescources are going to be used in production of the apples and what the opportunity costs of using those rescoures for that purpose instead of for other purposes are. The best way to find out has been/ is through the profit mechanism/concept or whatever you want to call it.

Also greed isn't a bad thing. Greed is the reason I'm currently trying to integrate an irrigation system into our farming practices that will potetially reduce the amount of water we irrigate with by 30% while decreasing the amount of fertilizer used as well as the amount that get leached into the surrounding water supply.
08-25-2009 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomVeil
I feel the same way about my holler pic
Unfortunately, I had already seen that picture prior to your post. Otherwise, I would've made much ado, etc.
08-25-2009 , 12:46 PM
I have been carefully reading this thread and trying to work out which position I agree with, if any.

I think, ultimately, that I believe the following:

Rights don't exist. They are an abstraction that is nice to think about in theory but in reality, the only important factor is force in one form or another.

In particular relevance to this thread, property rights don't exist. Again, only force matters, which is why Isreal can happily grow olives on lands once owned by the palestinians and why the USA doesn't belong to the native americans any more.

There seems to be a prevailing idea that what is most efficient overall, in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is somehow the "best" solution. All the talk of ownership rights and homesteading and fencing in land so as to own the fruits of ones labor reinforces this notion. Again, I disagree - all that matters is force. If one group has more power than another, even if their numbers are smaller, the land will be used in accordance with their wishes.

Is any of this right or wrong? It's irrelevant - despite my admiration for Ayn Rand, there are no moral absolutes when dealing with multiple people. Objectivism is bunkum, except when applied to the self and the self alone. The best one can say is that is given action is objectively moral from the point of view of onesself.

The reason why property rights and owning the fruits of ones labor and well-defined land ownership laws are a good idea (even though they don't exist in reality), right now at this moment in history, is that it's the most efficient way for the people with the most force (currently, the majority of people in a democracy, although this is not always a given) to get what they want.
08-25-2009 , 01:13 PM
sharpie,

I do think it is objectively the case that property rights are beneficial from an economic efficiency perspective.
08-25-2009 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xorbie
sharpie,

I do think it is objectively the case that property rights are beneficial from an economic efficiency perspective.
Beneficial to whom?

Efficient for whom?

In the economics classes that I have taken, "efficiency" typically means Pareto efficiency - the point where it's not possible to make anyone better off without making someone worse off.

If I claim to own the world and therefore don't let anyone else do anything, that's "efficiency", so long as I was the very first person to assert this claim.


Property rights make some things more efficient, certainly. At the same time, certain common goods, such as roads, a police force and defense can be provided to everyone cheaper than if each individual bargained singly. Using eminent domain to steal someones land could be more efficient than allowing absolute property rights as well.

Ultimately, we need to decide when, if ever, the "greater good" is a viable concern over what is best for an individual. My own personal opinion is that there is no objective way to do this - ultimately it all just comes down to which person, or group, has the most power.

Fortunately, the more people learn how they are getting screwed over, and the more people learn about ways they can be manipulated, the better the situation will become because each individual will become more powerful and more able to stand up for themselves and balance things out.
08-25-2009 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
There seems to be a prevailing idea that what is most efficient overall, in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is somehow the "best" solution. All the talk of ownership rights and homesteading and fencing in land so as to own the fruits of ones labor reinforces this notion. Again, I disagree - all that matters is force. If one group has more power than another, even if their numbers are smaller, the land will be used in accordance with their wishes.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that force is all that "matters". Obviously powerful people, nations, etc. can use force to get the property, money, or whatever they want. But what does this have to do with rights? Rights don't tell us anything about how things are or how they will "turn out"--they are prescriptive statements about how people should act (specifically, about which moral obligations are legitimately enforceable).

Quote:
Is any of this right or wrong? It's irrelevant - despite my admiration for Ayn Rand, there are no moral absolutes when dealing with multiple people.
Isn't "only force is important" a moral absolute?
08-25-2009 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nietzreznor
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that force is all that "matters". Obviously powerful people, nations, etc. can use force to get the property, money, or whatever they want. But what does this have to do with rights? Rights don't tell us anything about how things are or how they will "turn out"--they are prescriptive statements about how people should act (specifically, about which moral obligations are legitimately enforceable).
By saying that force is all that matters, I mean that force is the only important consideration to take into account when deciding whether one should or should not perform an action, presuming you already know that an action is in your own self interest. (Specifically, your own _enlightened_ self interest.)

In terms of your statement that a moral obligation is "Legitimately enforceable", I must ask - according to who?

In my mind, it all comes back to force - the only reason that something is legitimate is that there is force to back it up.

Again, solely my own opinion:

I personally think the world would be better if everyone would act entirely in their own enlightened self interest. By doing so, we will gradually work out the most efficient allocation of resources and optimal laws to be used and so on for the other constructs of society.

Rather than placing laws to protect people from harm, I feel that the systems we use to allocate resources would be better developed by helping people stand up for themselves better and to avoid manipulation and to correctly apply their own power in the most effective manner.

For example: Let's say one person is using some wilderness and enjoys it as wilderness and another person wishes to plant apple trees on this land. I would want to show both participants the full range of options they have, from violence and conflict to property rights and mutual trading and make them realize that it is up to THEM to choose the best way of dealing with each other as well as making the consequences for each action clear.

Through this understanding of the full range of options and the power available to each of us, I feel that we will, as a society, come up with better solutions to our problems and ultimately have more people get what they want.
08-25-2009 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
By saying that force is all that matters, I mean that force is the only important consideration to take into account when deciding whether one should or should not perform an action, presuming you already know that an action is in your own self interest. (Specifically, your own _enlightened_ self interest.)
But most human beings have moral considerations built-in to self-interest. When I consider whether or not I should perform action X, part of my process of reasoning includes moral considerations (for instance, if I were considering robbing you, I would probably decide against it, since it isn't in my self-interest to become unjust).

Quote:
In terms of your statement that a moral obligation is "Legitimately enforceable", I must ask - according to who?
Well, it's not "according to" anyone--if moral rights are 'objective truths' in the way that, say, the laws of physics are (obviously there are lots of differences between the two), then it isn't "according to" any particular person that such and such is true. We might be convinced by a particular person's or group's arguments, but the standards of truth are like those in other areas of knowledge: logic, consistency, accordance with the world, etc. I don't believe rights exist because someone has decreed them from on high, but because they fit with everything else that I believe about the world.
08-25-2009 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nietzreznor
But most human beings have moral considerations built-in to self-interest. When I consider whether or not I should perform action X, part of my process of reasoning includes moral considerations (for instance, if I were considering robbing you, I would probably decide against it, since it isn't in my self-interest to become unjust).
I totally agree. Self interest doesn't mean that we all have to rob and cheat and steal from each other. Indeed, it's in my own self interest to have a nice, stable, peaceful, fulfilling society to live in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nietzreznor
Well, it's not "according to" anyone--if moral rights are 'objective truths' in the way that, say, the laws of physics are (obviously there are lots of differences between the two), then it isn't "according to" any particular person that such and such is true. We might be convinced by a particular person's or group's arguments, but the standards of truth are like those in other areas of knowledge: logic, consistency, accordance with the world, etc. I don't believe rights exist because someone has decreed them from on high, but because they fit with everything else that I believe about the world.
Here, I totally disagree. In my opinion, rights are NOT objective truths - the only reason they *seem* objective (in my opinion) is because there is a lot of force backing them up.

To be objective, there must be a way that two rational people can agree upon to prove the existence of the thing in question. Would you agree?

If you would, perhaps you have an argument or some observation that I have not heard?
08-25-2009 , 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Money2Burn
The best way to find out has been/ is through the profit mechanism/concept or whatever you want to call it.
I don't think just saying that makes it true. Saying its true by suggesting a different way of life would turn humanity into grunting wolfpacks, like the OP did, isn't a good starting point for rational discussion. That's my main complaint

Quote:
Also greed isn't a bad thing. Greed is the reason I'm currently trying to integrate an irrigation system into our farming practices that will potetially reduce the amount of water we irrigate with by 30% while decreasing the amount of fertilizer used as well as the amount that get leached into the surrounding water supply.
Wouldn't you still consider doing this if money were no object?
08-25-2009 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Here, I totally disagree. In my opinion, rights are NOT objective truths - the only reason they *seem* objective (in my opinion) is because there is a lot of force backing them up.
Not sure what you mean here--what force is backing up rights that are ignored? I know I'm not the only one here who a) thinks that we have some right x, and b) that right x is being ignored. Now, maybe it is the case that such a right actually isn't one, but it is hard to see why it would seem to be one, or seem to be an objective truth, on your interpretation. In my mind, your interpretation makes more sense as an explanation for the "seemingly" objectiveness of actually existing legal rights; but since ethical rights are often unenforced it doesn't seem like we are talking about the same thing.


Quote:
To be objective, there must be a way that two rational people can agree upon to prove the existence of the thing in question. Would you agree?

If you would, perhaps you have an argument or some observation that I have not heard?
Well, I agree that there must be some theoretical way for people to agree (what is the alternative? solipsism or relativism?), but I don't see why it would actually have to be the case that some subset of people did agree. To use science as an example again, if some group of people believed that doing a rain dance brought rain, the fact that they might not be convinced by an particular set of arguments wouldn't show that our current scientific theories were wrong, or that they only applied to us and not to them. Likewise, the fact that A cannot convince B of a particular moral truth doesn't mean that it isn't a moral truth; it just means that B hasn't been convinced (or perhaps he is just wrong). Moral arguments, like other arguments, start from readily acceptable or shared premises and move logically toward a conclusion. So I am not sure what grounds there would be for thinking that objective truths were impossible in this arena.
08-25-2009 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
So there is limited land but you can grow unlimited apples on it? Nice trick.
currently the number of "apples" we produce is enough for the entire population. the land is much more limited though and there isn't enough for the worlds population.
08-25-2009 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bedreviter
I know you live in a narrow-minded self-delusional bubble where you are a great political thinker, but you're really not (as I am sure your experiences outside this forum have already shown you).

So you want to end the government on the basis that it is wrong, but you want to keep the mandates given by the government that never should have been there? That's a sweet deal, too bad it does not make much sense.
lol this is my favorite post i have read in a while.
08-25-2009 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
This is a good point. It's worth it's own OP. I'll instead just outline my thoughts.

Recall in the OP I said that there was little disincentive to intergroup violence, as opposed to intragroup violence, where there are strong disincentives in tribal/small group size societies. This leads directly to the creation of states. States are formed in conquest. One group, usually with a technological advantage, executes raids to plunder another group. At some point it occurs to them that it would be easier just to take up residence amongst the victim group as rulers, and they invoke some sort of philosophical or religious justification (divine right, godhood, etc.). This last part is the most important one. Obviously, it is much riskier and costlier to go about mugging people if they do not want to be mugged. They will tend to avoid places that make for easy muggings. They may carry weapons. But If you can convince them that it's just that they should be mugged, that it's only right and proper that they should be mugged, in fact you'll have to come up with some other word for it, like "taxation", and get them to mug themselves by filling out forms and sending you checks so that you only rarely have to send out the muggers, er, revenuers, then obviously the costs of aggression are greatly reduced and the profit potential greatly enhanced.

So, I will not deny that aggression can be profitable; a quick glance at the modern state will serve to illustrate that aggression is in fact the most profitable trade in the history of the world. However, I will argue that this can only be the case via ideological subterfuge on the part of the state to get the public to go along with their own plundering, if not out of outright belief in the state's myths, at least with a sense of resigned inevitability.

Hence, the task of the libertarian is to reveal the myth for what it is, a myth, and reveal the state for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large, the organization of the political means, where the political means are the coercive means of accumulating wealth, rather than the voluntary, productive means.
The problem is that this can also be the case with private property. A bunch of people gain control of resources in some way and don't want anyone else to try to take it, so they talk about "property rights" in order to give others philosophical reasons for not raiding them. If they stopped believing in property rights, pretty soon this system would collapse just as the state would in an equivalent situation. Additionally, there is no particular reason to believe these property claims are any more or less legitimate than sovereignty claims. For example, our group of bandits, instead of settling down in an area and calling themselves a state, they make a property claim over an area and call themselves landlords. (Tell me, if this is so likely with states, why would it not be the case with property?) We reach the present day with new landlords, in which you claim that that chain of title being broken in the distant past is not relevant today. However, when we reach the present day with new politicians in the neighbouring territory, you call their state illegitimate.
08-26-2009 , 06:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBruiser500
currently the number of "apples" we produce is enough for the entire population. the land is much more limited though and there isn't enough for the worlds population.
So where exactly is the worlds population then if not on land? A lot of them floating around in the sky are they? "Damn I wish that rich bastard would demolish that mansion so I could finally come down. My arms are knackered from all this flapping."
08-26-2009 , 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
The problem is that this can also be the case with private property. A bunch of people gain control of resources in some way and don't want anyone else to try to take it, so they talk about "property rights" in order to give others philosophical reasons for not raiding them. If they stopped believing in property rights, pretty soon this system would collapse just as the state would in an equivalent situation. Additionally, there is no particular reason to believe these property claims are any more or less legitimate than sovereignty claims. For example, our group of bandits, instead of settling down in an area and calling themselves a state, they make a property claim over an area and call themselves landlords. (Tell me, if this is so likely with states, why would it not be the case with property?) We reach the present day with new landlords, in which you claim that that chain of title being broken in the distant past is not relevant today. However, when we reach the present day with new politicians in the neighbouring territory, you call their state illegitimate.
This is why I believe it all comes down to force. Somewhere along the line someone was bigger than someone else or had better weapons or out-reproduced the others. In the words of Neal Stephenson, everyone single one of us is a "stupendous badass" simply by virtue of the fact that we happen to be around and the less competitive strains of DNA died out.
08-26-2009 , 10:28 AM
Quote:
The idea that one can own the fruits of one's labour, but not natural resources is on the surface a compelling one. The idea that natural resources are owned by the first-appropriator is no-more or no-less valid that that the idea that they are owned by the tallest, or strongest, or hairiest, or whatever person.
First appropriation is often described as "mixing my labor with the land" which is what makes it different from just the tallest, hairiest or strongest person owning them. If I own my labor then I own the outcomes of my labor. If I pull all of the stones out of a field then my labor has provided me with a field without stones, anyone else's use of that field would prevent me from enjoying the fruits of that labor.
08-26-2009 , 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBruiser500
lol this is my favorite post i have read in a while.
When bruiser agrees with you, it's generally a good sign to take a closer look at what you have posted and try to find the error.

      
m