NathanCJohnson

Medieval Iceland is held up as an anarchocapitalist model. I do admire the freedom of Iceland's non-territorial jurisdiction. We should be able to choose our leaders as they did (not just the illusion of democratic choice). But I was interested to learn the demise of this freedom came from an extension of land property rights much as Henry George predicted. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38044-iceland-and-the-demise-of-anarchy/

Medieval Iceland is held up as an anarchocapitalist model. I do admire the freedom of Iceland's non-territorial jurisdiction. We should be able to choose our leaders as they did (not just the illusion of democratic choice). But I was interested to learn the demise of this freedom came from an extension of land property rights much as Henry George predicted. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append139.html "The transformation of possession into property and the resulting rise of hired labour was a key element in the accumulation of wealth and power, and the corresponding decline in liberty among the farmers. Moreover, with hired labour springs dependency -- the worker is now dependent on good relations with their landlord in order to have access to the land they need. With such reductions in the independence of part of Icelandic society, the undermining of self-management in the various Things was also likely as labourers could not vote freely as they could be subject to sanctions from their landlord for voting the "wrong" way ("The courts were less likely to base judgements on the evidence than to adjust decisions to satisfy the honour and resources of powerful individuals." [byock, Op. Cit., p. 185]). The political transition within Icelandic society went hand in hand with an economic transition (both tendencies being mutually reinforcing). Initially, when Iceland was settled, large-scale farming based on extended households with kinsmen was the dominant economic mode. This semi-communal mode of production changed as the land was divided up (mostly through inheritance claims) between the 10th and 11th centuries. This new economic system based upon individual possession and artisan production was then slowly displaced by tenant farming, in which the farmer worked for a landlord, starting in the late 11th century. This economic system (based on tenant farming, i.e. capitalistic production) ensured that "great variants of property and power emerged." [Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland, pp. 172-173] So significant changes in society started to occur in the eleventh century, as"slavery all but ceased. Tenant farming . . . took [its] place." Iceland was moving from an economy based on possession to one based on private property and so "the renting of land was a widely established practice by the late eleventh century . . . the status of the godar must have been connected with landownership and rents." This lead to increasing oligarchy and so the mid- to late-twelfth century was "characterised by the appearance of a new elite, the big chieftains who are called storgodar . . . [who] struggled from the 1220s to the 1260s to win what had earlier been unobtainable for Icelandic leaders, the prize of overlordship or centralised executive authority." [byock, Op. Cit., p. 269 and pp. 3-4]

Norpan, How would land privitization be established without a state? Some consider fencing in a territory like the lot above to be a legitimate method of indefinite homesteading. Can you clarify, what is needed for anarchocapitalism homesteading?

The term "real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege.When the state granted land titles to a fraction of the population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others. Those without land privileges must either buy or rent those privileges from the people who received the grants or from their assignees. Thus the state titles enable large landowners to collect a transfer payment, or "free lunch" from the actual land users. A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation. --Thomas Jefferson

What a crock. This world is not lacking in sufficient resources. That was the error of Malthus. This world has an overwhelming abundance of resources, but some have coordinated if off from other, with the justification that their ancestors got their first (not counting the indigenous people and with reliance on state privilege, of course).

I'm sorry what investments did the owner of this vacant lot make to make this land worth $15 million? He did nothing but use state privilege to block others from using it. Meanwhile the community brought it value by building restaurants, subways, roads, stores and businesses. "Night life on the block is very vibrant, you have the hotel on rivington across the street. Fine retail and restaurant establishments on both rivington and ludlow streets. With a c4-4a zoning a developer can have stores on the ground floor and apartments above. The property is right in the vicinity of all modes of transportation. The v and f trains are on delancey and essex street, the b15 is on allen street, which goes uptown. It's also in the vicinity of the sunshine theatre and the essex street market. " http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Rivington-St_New-York_NY_10002_M45248-62819?row=1&source=web

A few months ago I had a chance to speak with Stefan on this topic? We start talking about the issue 8:50 minutes in. I'd love to get other's thought's on our chat.http://youtu.be/te7rJYk66Vs Also talked about it on the boards here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36198-is-homesteading-upb/ i'm sorry is the land up for bid? If someone owns the land they can hirer the person who makes it most productive.

I was the caller to Stefan. We talk more about the issues in this forum. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36198-is-homesteading-upb/

Does any one have thoughts about my discussion with Stefan on this topic? We start talking about the issue 8:50 minutes in

xelent, Your fisherman seems to have acted quite fairly but not to his maximum profit. Now what if he had instead homesteaded the entire lake. Then when his workers wanted to fish on their own. He could have charged them a monthly fee for using the lake, a monthly fee for building a dock there and if they wanted to be close to work, a monthly fee for locating their house nearby. Now he is acting with the power of the landlord. Now if their was a unclaimed lake nearby with as many fish he wouldn't be able to rent seek. But if all the best lakes are monopolized, he and his descendants for generations to come can retire from fishing and live off the rent. The Lockean Proviso is a feature of John Locke's labor theory of property which says that whilst individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature by working on it, they can do so only "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

You are assuming there must be ownership of space. If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating. They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else. Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce.

You are assuming there must be ownership of space. If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating. They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else. Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce.

You are assuming there must be ownership of space. If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating. They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else. Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce.

You are assuming there must be ownership of space. If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating. They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else. Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce.

You are assuming there must be ownership of space. If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating. They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else. Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce.