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.

Adam, I've quoted some of your material in an online discussion and referenced here. Is this your original work? Are there articles online you've written that I should reference instead?

I think the onus would be on the one who wants to exclude them. I would guess much less then 1% of land owners could trace back a line of ownership back to homesteading. Even if they could go back centuries, they would almost invariablely find that the title does not come from being the first to use the land but to some state sanctioned title. Even if a mixing labor with virgin soil were a valid way to secure an indefinite property claim, it is not the basis of the vast majority of land titles. The state has written the history of land ownership, and those not in positions state privledge who previously used a land, found their history not recorded by the state.

So if I come on your land, you or the government as your agent cannot initiate force against me? If you cannot exclude me from your land, then it is a public space.

. We can all benefit from people developing their property, because it can flourish into a much richer resource in time, as in cities etc. So I think the question of those who benefits, is not necessasrily just a landlowner or landlord if that makes sense. Yes this is true. This is why geoist don't advocate a confiscatory property tax but collection of ground rent. With property tax, a lot in Manhattan with a beautiful skyscraper on it pays much more property tax then an undevelop, unkempt lot. The person who develops land is punished. Currently someone can own an urban vacant lot and see his value rise through the years as the community brings value and he does nothing. By collecting ground rent, land will move from those who keep it idle to those who can economically develop it.

Adam, By open borders I mean open immigration. Compensation should be given to those who are excluded, so if the rest of the world is not excluded from coming to your area, there is no necessity for compensation. If the force of the state is used to exclude others from your area, then you are relying on violence, rather then a mutually beneficial transaction. I agree that no one is naturally owed money or goods, but everyone needs access to land. We "should" look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other, and compensating others for restricting their access makes sense.

That's not the georgist theory I've encounter or endose either. What I've learned is that there should be open borders and the rent is owed to those who are excluded. This is those who are in close proximity who are reasonablly sacrificing their ability to come on to the land. Those in close proximity also create the local economy that gives the land value. This is why a few square feet in Manhattan is worth more then many acres in a rural area. The community creates the value, so the rent should return to the community as a citizen dividend or a projects that further enhance the value of the land. If for instance, you look at the increase in land value that building a subway stop provides, that increase collected as rent could be enough to fund the creation of the subway. This is not a coercive immoral tax like taxing labor or trade, because it is only owed to the extent one excludes others. And using a citizen dividend if your land value is less then what others on average claim there is nothing to pay.

Good to find some others familiar Georgism on the board. I got a chance to speak briefly to Stef at Anarchy in NY about it and it was a new concept to him. I really think George provides a morally preferable 3rd way between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism.

Adam, Really nice post. That is a key point that property rights are derived from excluding others. So if someone hunts in an area but doesn't make an effort to exclude others, he might later find himself excluded from an area by someone who does. This concept rewards people who exclude others from mutually using the land.

I recognize that many use Marxist as an insult, but my pointing out a similarity was not meant to disparage. Marx has key errors but also valid points. I think many of us would agree with Marxist criticisms of imperialism for instance.I think the more harmful tenets of Marxism is the abolition of private property that is the fruit of one's labor. This is very damaging and destructive and was opposed by George.

I'd argue that the anacaps are making the same mistake as the Marxist by putting land and capital in the same category.