Who's Money Is It?

[Arius]

 

So, let's get rid of government. Woo hoo, the evil statists are gone. Now, how will that help the people with no land, no education, no prospects, no future.

I suspect that's why it must be a multi-generational change.  As the man says, there must be a non-Marxist "long march through the institutions" before anything meaningful can happen.  It won't work if social change is catastrophic in speed.  It's not just a revolution, it's a paradigm shift.

Unsustainability. It doesn't matter how "free" the market is, if it runs out of resources, how free is it?

The free market is a more sustainable than whatever you want to call the current situation.  If the costs of waste are paid by the waster (rather than being involuntarily socialized), the end effect can only be less waste.

You gotta compare possible alternatives.  The "what is" versus the "what else there could be".   If you include the "wouldn't it be nice if" in the comparison, it'll win every time.

Granted, privatization might result in better use of resources, but who receives the benefit of privatization? If government held lands were offered for sale, who could buy them?

.

If the government sells land, the ruling class is almost certain to reap the maximum benefit.

Taking current industrial civilization as a given and trying to apply a fix seems hollow to me.

That is absolutely true.

 

You should read some Kevin Carson.  He's a mutualist, so he might not appeal to the die-hard AnCaps.  However, he has a most well-informed view on how the state distorts the crap out of the economy.  He also discusses several alternative economic models which don't involve force.  I just finished this book and I gotta tell ya, it really cleared some things up for me.  It's the first Anarcho-book I've consumed which reads like an MBA wrote it.  I've linked-out to the Amazon page for it, but I'm sure it's available...elsewhere... for free.

[STer]

 

Ster: I appreciate you responding. You could have wrote me off as some ranting know-nothing.

I do understand the idea of attempting to "thread-focus". I may have gone overboard, but from your response I take it that you, also, feel frustration at times.

What might have been missed is that I have not advocated anything up to this point. The topic was raised as a question. Making pronouncements upon such a divisive issue does not lend itself to debate. Neither does nit-picking definitions. Both result in more pronouncements and more nit-picking.

Now, I will begin to advocate:

My true feeling is that it won't matter soon, because after the bankruptcy of current trends, chaos is bound to ensue. Where's our theory then?

The evidence I have is that I cannot trust anyone to look towards anything but their own selfish-interest. Notice I did not say self-interest. The difference being, self-interest implies looking out for oneself while open to the interest of others; selfish-interest implies looking out for oneself to the exclusion of others.

Reading between the lines of current discourse is the implication that anyone who advocates the status-quo, no matter the new words used to describe it, or the new system to implement it, avoids the fact that literally billions of people have been victimized by other people. What about them?

So, let's get rid of government. Woo hoo, the evil statists are gone. Now, how will that help the people with no land, no education, no prospects, no future.

Is industrial civilization right and proper? I've noticed that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians make no mention of the core of our problem: rampant growth. The theories all deal with how to allow growth by free exercise. Is growth, specifically, economic growth, a good thing?

Problem: Unsustainability. It doesn't matter how "free" the market is, if it runs out of resources, how free is it?

Granted, privatization might result in better use of resources, but who receives the benefit of privatization? If government held lands were offered for sale, who could buy them?

Do you see how many other issues are exposed by the initial question?

Taking current industrial civilization as a given and trying to apply a fix seems hollow to me.

Afterword:

I cannot claim to have any, much less all, the answers. What I can ask is for people to think about this stuff, and not quibble with my use of some word, in some context. I have not attempted to write some philosophical treatise, subject to logical dissection.

Notice I wrote ask...

 

DarkSky,

My entire approach is based on unsustainability as the main problem. In the same blog post I linked at the start of the thread, where I pointed people to the section on the "statute of limitation" on self-defense, there is another section where I advocate for involving an anarcho-primitivist in the discussion. This is because they are a lot more likely to challenge industrial civilization and that needs to be part of the conversation. Unsustainable growth as a paradigm is the core problem, I believe, as well and I focus on it constantly in my work.

Check out Growthbusters by the way.

You again mention how many people have already been damaged by the system as it is and that we can't just move on while ignoring that. And once again, that's exactly why I say it isn't enough to just promote the NAP.

This is a strange situation where we seem, from the very start, to be in agreement. I came into the thread to back up the importance of what you were raising, not to challenge it. And yet you are responding with a tone as if we are disagreeing.

The one thing I take issue with is you calling what I was doing "quibbling." I maintain that the question I was asking is essential and that it is telling that nobody answers it, both in this thread and elsewhere. Nothing you've said has diminished my belief that the definition of what counts as self-defense is one of the single most important questions anarchists and libertarians must answer.

[RestoringGuy]

I don't understand what you mean by "you should have no time." Are you saying that if someone comes and takes your property, as soon as they occupy it, it now belongs to them? It seems like you're saying there is no such thing as theft because as soon as someone new occupies a piece of property, there is no justification to take it back. Or am I misunderstanding.

No it does not belong to them and there is no justification to initiate force as a remedy.  Take it back by using non-aggressive barriers.  Even though it does not belng to them, force is not justified as a remedy because force was never initiated by those you take back from.  This simple definition eliminates the need for arbitrary time limits.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I agree that the issue of self-defense could use some clarification. Taking back property based on some historical claim does not seem to qualify as defense. The aggressors are dead in most cases, so it would amount to use of force against people innocent of the initial crime, regardless of their current status.

One thing that's been nagging me is the idea of privatization of "public" lands and infrastructure. A case could be made that this would be a continuation of the cycle of state-sponsored force, as the individuals in a position to make the purchases have mostly benefited from said force to make the money in the first place.

Leaving that aside, we are left with another difficulty: if public land is sold, where does the money go? Given a minarchy it would seem reasonable to apply the funds to the minimal governmental functions, resulting in less pressure to raise funds through taxation. Not so simple if it comes to anarchy.

So I've debated myself around the circle and back to the starting point: who's money is it?

I've become so skeptical I have trouble believing myself. (And recognizing when someone might be agreeing with me, thanks STer.)

 

[AdamC]

 

....if public land is sold, where does the money go? Given a minarchy it would seem reasonable to apply the funds to the minimal governmental functions, resulting in less pressure to raise funds through taxation. Not so simple if it comes to anarchy.

So I've debated myself around the circle and back to the starting point: who's money is it?

 

 

The money/property paid to exclude others from occupying land (location) within a geographically-defined community can be distributed equally amongst the members of that community.

A member's ongoing payment of "geo-rent" (in proportion to the market value of their exclusion) secures the community's agreement to their exclusion and guarantees a share of the distributed "geo-rent" in compensation for being excluded from other locations.

See Fred Foldvary on Geolibertarianism and Geoanarchism

 

[STer]

 

I don't understand what you mean by "you should have no time." Are you saying that if someone comes and takes your property, as soon as they occupy it, it now belongs to them? It seems like you're saying there is no such thing as theft because as soon as someone new occupies a piece of property, there is no justification to take it back. Or am I misunderstanding.

No it does not belong to them and there is no justification to initiate force as a remedy.  Take it back by using non-aggressive barriers.  Even though it does not belng to them, force is not justified as a remedy because force was never initiated by those you take back from.  This simple definition eliminates the need for arbitrary time limits.

 

Well this just points out again why the NAP needs definition so badly. As far as I know, many, if not most, people who believe in the NAP do believe that theft - at least in some cases - is considered an initiation of force and the use of force in response may be justified. I'm sure there would be gray areas here. In some cases, I think the theft is serious enough that they would consider self-defense justifiable. In others, perhaps if what is being taken is not very valuable, they wouldn't.

The fact that I've been hanging around here for quite some time and still have so much confusion about what people really believe when they talk about the NAP is telling.

[STer]

 

I agree that the issue of self-defense could use some clarification. Taking back property based on some historical claim does not seem to qualify as defense. The aggressors are dead in most cases, so it would amount to use of force against people innocent of the initial crime, regardless of their current status.

 

But by that logic if someone can steal something and hand it down to their kids, the kids (and grandkids, etc.) get it scot-free. All they have to do is successfully hold onto the stolen property long enough for it to pass down one generation and they get to keep it in perpetuity. Do you think that's a reasonable policy?

 

One thing that's been nagging me is the idea of privatization of "public" lands and infrastructure. A case could be made that this would be a continuation of the cycle of state-sponsored force, as the individuals in a position to make the purchases have mostly benefited from said force to make the money in the first place.

 

Exactly the same issue as with the land. It's just wealth in general, whether currency or land or anything else. If there was coercion used in acquiring it at any time in the past, then these moral questions arise. And the main question I see is "How long do these past wrongs continue to be relevant?" or in other words "What is the statute of limitations?" It still seems to me that's what everything you're asking comes down to.

 

So I've debated myself around the circle and back to the starting point: who's money is it?

 

I'd expand that to "Whose resources are they?" Isn't that really where this all stems from? I have seen threads on this forum before questioning how individuals come to believe they have ownership over natural resources. Nobody originally "owned" the earth. So is it not a commons we all started off with a share in? And was that original sharing changed by moral means? If not then why are current ownership claims legitimate?

These are really important and fundamental questions.

 

I've become so skeptical I have trouble believing myself. (And recognizing when someone might be agreeing with me, thanks STer.)

 

Welcome

[STer]

 

I agree that the issue of self-defense could use some clarification. Taking back property based on some historical claim does not seem to qualify as defense. The aggressors are dead in most cases, so it would amount to use of force against people innocent of the initial crime, regardless of their current status.

One thing that's been nagging me is the idea of privatization of "public" lands and infrastructure. A case could be made that this would be a continuation of the cycle of state-sponsored force, as the individuals in a position to make the purchases have mostly benefited from said force to make the money in the first place.

Leaving that aside, we are left with another difficulty: if public land is sold, where does the money go? Given a minarchy it would seem reasonable to apply the funds to the minimal governmental functions, resulting in less pressure to raise funds through taxation. Not so simple if it comes to anarchy.

So I've debated myself around the circle and back to the starting point: who's money is it?

I've become so skeptical I have trouble believing myself. (And recognizing when someone might be agreeing with me, thanks STer.)

 

 

I believe that in Alaska every citizen gets a share of the state's oil profits. I'm pretty sure it's just distributed equally but you could look into it. I don't know if that sheds any light on a possible model. Even in a case with a state involved, they just divvy it up equally (I think).

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Being as how, essentially, all property and wealth on Earth is the result, direct or indirect, past or present,of force (with a tiny few exceptions), and not the result of voluntary transaction, should anarcho-capitalists, or any group claiming to promote freedom, advocate the "wiping of the slate"?

 

I’d say, don't worry about the “clean slate” and let them keep the loot. The current state of capitalism in the US was able to produce enormous amounts of successful producers in one generation, just imagine if the capitalism was un-impinged… The history suggests that most of the stolen fortunes are usually lost within a generation or two anyway and usually ruin the heirs in the process.

 

To be wholly consistent in the claim that a free market is of benefit and fair to all, wouldn't that require all property to be redivided equally, allowing every human the same starting conditions, with equal chance to succeed or fail?

 

There is a recent example of what you are “not advocating.” In 1990s upon fall of Communism in former Soviet Union, every citizen was issued a so-called voucher, which was supposed to enable him/her to acquire a piece of formerly common pie. There were three major challenges that almost immediately arose…

1.       Valuating these vouchers – what is the value of the total property that was owned by the Communist system, which currency do you use (Russian Ruble was experiencing huge bouts of hyperinflation at the time), should the pieces of the pie be equal (some people lived productively in the country all their lives, others were just born)

2.       Matching the properties with these vouchers. Let’s say everyone wants the oil refinery, but no one wants the “Ole’ Horse Whip” factory, is the refiner now worth 100% of all vouchers and Whips is worth zero?

3.       General population knowledge – in the country where nobody had any private property before, people had very little understanding of what they were getting into.

As the result, the whole system went crazy: those who figured out how to exploit it and bribe their way to most promising auctions became billionaires, vast majority of population sold their vouchers for a bottle of vodka in the best case scenario or ended up with useless pieces of wallpaper for their washrooms in the worst case.

And this is an example of only distributing centrally-owned assets that were submitted voluntarily.

[RestoringGuy]

 

Well this just points out again why the NAP needs definition so badly. As far as I know, many, if not most, people who believe in the NAP do believe that theft - at least in some cases - is considered an initiation of force and the use of force in response may be justified. I'm sure there would be gray areas here. In some cases, I think the theft is serious enough that they would consider self-defense justifiable. In others, perhaps if what is being taken is not very valuable, they wouldn't.

The fact that I've been hanging around here for quite some time and still have so much confusion about what people really believe when they talk about the NAP is telling.

 

I believe there is not one kind of justification.  There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification.  Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential.  To survive it might be necessary to steal.  The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this:  "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?"  So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard?  I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies.  Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with.  So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative.

With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult.  I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another.  It does not seem right to me.  The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst.  But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim.

 

[MarkIX]

 

 

Well this just points out again why the NAP needs definition so badly. As far as I know, many, if not most, people who believe in the NAP do believe that theft - at least in some cases - is considered an initiation of force and the use of force in response may be justified. I'm sure there would be gray areas here. In some cases, I think the theft is serious enough that they would consider self-defense justifiable. In others, perhaps if what is being taken is not very valuable, they wouldn't.

The fact that I've been hanging around here for quite some time and still have so much confusion about what people really believe when they talk about the NAP is telling.

 

I believe there is not one kind of justification.  There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification.  Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential.  To survive it might be necessary to steal.  The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this:  "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?"  So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard?  I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies.  Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with.  So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative.

With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult.  I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another.  It does not seem right to me.  The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst.  But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim.

 

 

I am confused as to what your thought experiment proves as it seems to me impossible and therefore irrelevent. Do you think you could break it down for me?

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

 

Well this just points out again why the NAP needs definition so badly. As far as I know, many, if not most, people who believe in the NAP do believe that theft - at least in some cases - is considered an initiation of force and the use of force in response may be justified. I'm sure there would be gray areas here. In some cases, I think the theft is serious enough that they would consider self-defense justifiable. In others, perhaps if what is being taken is not very valuable, they wouldn't.

The fact that I've been hanging around here for quite some time and still have so much confusion about what people really believe when they talk about the NAP is telling.

 

I believe there is not one kind of justification.  There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification.  Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential.  To survive it might be necessary to steal.  The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this:  "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?"  So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard?  I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies.  Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with.  So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative.

With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult.  I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another.  It does not seem right to me.  The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst.  But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim.

 

 

I am confused as to what your thought experiment proves as it seems to me impossible and therefore irrelevent. Do you think you could break it down for me?

 

There are too many weird exceptions in golden rule style of ethics, so matters of principle require an abstraction.  In other words, what "should" we do is subjected to conditions that the other guy is not me nor in my situation or have my knowledge set.  So universality seems difficult to state or evaluate.  Each case seems only to be evaluated by hypothetical overlay of our decision process on top of the other person's current situation.

I hold the view that I am what I am, not who I was.  So when a person is doing something wrong, they make a choice at each instant to continue, and its not a wrong that exists all at once at the time of their initial decision to act.  We can argue whether a thief is wrong when they touch an item, or walk with it, or how many millimeters away now constitutes theft.

My thought experiment is to judge as if you were in that situation, not through your choice but as if you were just materialized there.  This eliminates the need for past choices to ethically persist for arbitrary amounts of time, but they persist in terms of being a present choice of harm that continues to be done.  It is relevant because if ownership is based on the ethics of past acquisitions, we are all just beneficiaries of the actions of our past selves and all property becomes unethical.   If I suddenly materialized as a bank robber running with a bag of money (having had no control of prior action), then I carry two things: money and feeling of guilt.  I am compelled to give the money back not to punish or correct error of myself, but to remove present guilt (neglecting that it could turn out that money is government funds).  I think we know intuitively things are more wrong when they persist, considering stealing versus unannounced borrowing.  I do not know if my views are totally consistent, but that is just my thinking so far.

[MarkIX]

 

I am confused as to what your thought experiment proves as it seems to me impossible and therefore irrelevent. Do you think you could break it down for me?

 

There are too many weird exceptions in golden rule style of ethics, so matters of principle require an abstraction.  In other words, what "should" we do is subjected to conditions that the other guy is not me nor in my situation or have my knowledge set.  So universality seems difficult to state or evaluate.  Each case seems only to be evaluated by hypothetical overlay of our decision process on top of the other person's current situation.

Regardless of the golden rule problem, which I agree with but for different reasons,(at least I think I do). Isn't Universality easy to state "If action A is right/wrong for person X then it is right/wrong for all persons." Am I missing something? Are you talking about why something "Should" be universal?

I hold the view that I am what I am, not who I was.  So when a person is doing something wrong, they make a choice at each instant to continue, and its not a wrong that exists all at once at the time of their initial decision to act.  We can argue whether a thief is wrong when they touch an item, or walk with it, or how many millimeters away now constitutes theft.

This suggests to me that you acknowledge no responsibility for actions taken by your past self regardless of wether you continue them or not. Each moment allowsa new decision to either nullify or perpetuate any past action without consequences accruing to the "current" (and therefore only) self. Is that what you mean?

My thought experiment is to judge as if you were in that situation, not through your choice but as if you were just materialized there.  This eliminates the need for past choices to ethically persist for arbitrary amounts of time, but they persist in terms of being a present choice of harm that continues to be done.  It is relevant because if ownership is based on the ethics of past acquisitions, we are all just beneficiaries of the actions of our past selves and all property becomes unethical.

I don't see how this follows

  If I suddenly materialized as a bank robber running with a bag of money (having had no control of prior action), then I carry two things: money and feeling of guilt.  I am compelled to give the money back not to punish or correct error of myself, but to remove present guilt (neglecting that it could turn out that money is government funds).  I think we know intuitively things are more wrong when they persist, considering stealing versus unannounced borrowing.  I do not know if my views are totally consistent, but that is just my thinking so far.

But wouldn't this guilt require you to have the knowledge set of the "bank robber" in that you would need to know the fashion in which the money was aquired to feel guilty? And if you had that knowledge set why would you in fact feel guilty? If it is only based on your knowledge set that that the performance of certain actions "Should" make a person feel guilty, why is it neccessary to pretend to be that other person (or other self)?

[RestoringGuy]

Isn't Universality easy to state "If action A is right/wrong for person X then it is right/wrong for all persons." Am I missing something? Are you talking about why something "Should" be universal?

The word "action" is not simple.  I can move my hands, but my "action" includes where my hands go.  Some people would say action includes other consequences, such as feelings or changes of perception (damage to property value in the market).  Saying universality is easy to state implies that action is easy to state.

This suggests to me that you acknowledge no responsibility for actions taken by your past self regardless of wether you continue them or not. Each moment allows a new decision to either nullify or perpetuate any past action without consequences accruing to the "current" (and therefore only) self. Is that what you mean?

  I do not mean there is no responsibility.  This applies only to NAP, not financial responsibility in general.  I mean only to determine whether that responsibility is sufficient to justify the use of force.  By force I mean what is the basis of how much force I would inflict on myself to stop me from doing a particular wrong (even one that I had no choice in doing).

But wouldn't this guilt require you to have the knowledge set of the "bank robber" in that you would need to know the fashion in which the money was aquired to feel guilty? And if you had that knowledge set why would you in fact feel guilty? If it is only based on your knowledge set that that the performance of certain actions "Should" make a person feel guilty, why is it neccessary to pretend to be that other person (or other self)?

Yes.  By materialized I meant with the knowledge of what has previously happened.  People still feel guilty when causing an accident, so guilt is not automatically nullified by knowing the past.  It is necessary to pretend in order to decide what action should be taken against others.  We cannot all become bank robbers to learn enough about bank robbing to figure out what is the ideal remedy.

[MarkIX]

 

The word "action" is not simple.  I can move my hands, but my "action" includes where my hands go.  Some people would say action includes other consequences, such as feelings or changes of perception (damage to property value in the market).  Saying universality is easy to state implies that action is easy to state.

Are you saying that the word "action" like the word the word "aggression" and the word "force" are only meaningful in the context of a mutually constructed framework?

I do not mean there is no responsibility.  This applies only to NAP, not financial responsibility in general.  I mean only to determine whether that responsibility is sufficient to justify the use of force.  By force I mean what is the basis of how much force I would inflict on myself to stop me from doing a particular wrong (even one that I had no choice in doing).

I don't understand how this works. If I choose to do something, then I would not choose to sanction myself for that choice, if I have no choice in that action then how and why would I choose to sanction myself, just as I would not sanction myself for the actions of another. What am I missing?

 

Yes.  By materialized I meant with the knowledge of what has previously happened.  People still feel guilty when causing an accident, so guilt is not automatically nullified by knowing the past.  It is necessary to pretend in order to decide what action should be taken against others.  We cannot all become bank robbers to learn enough about bank robbing to figure out what is the ideal remedy.

 

This says to me that the decision to sanction the "bank robber" is based solely on the knowledge set of the person doing the judging, which includes the knowledge of the "Bank robber's" actions. It still seems irrelevent to "pretend to be" the bank robber. Either the judgement of the action is done from your Knowledge set in which case it seems ( having never robbed a bank) that you judge the action to be unacceptable, from the Bank robbers Knowledge set in which case you judge the robbery to be accepable or from a null set in which case you don't care. I am still failing to see the need for an impossible assumption of "bank robberishness"

[RestoringGuy]

Are you saying that the word "action" like the word the word "aggression" and the word "force" are only meaningful in the context of a mutually constructed framework?

  I don't know if that is possible to argue that.  If true, then one can eliminate all aggression from one's behavior by simply refusing to construct a framework that includes aggression.  I guess I aim to define aggression without necessarily including action in the most general way, and I think of force/aggression as being attack of the person being attacked, and not their hopes and dreams or their MP3 player.  When it comes to right/wrong of the sort that is not based on force/aggression (property, honesty, good manners), then we must resort to a mutually constructed framework.  A person can construct a framework that does not include such things, but I do not see that as aggression, just stupid.

I don't understand how this works. If I choose to do something, then I would not choose to sanction myself for that choice, if I have no choice in that action then how and why would I choose to sanction myself, just as I would not sanction myself for the actions of another. What am I missing?

I did not say you choose and sanction on the basis of your choice while believing it is a good one.  I am saying you didn't choose (or would not), and your preferred choice would be different now that you're back in control.

 

This says to me that the decision to sanction the "bank robber" is based solely on the knowledge set of the person doing the judging, which includes the knowledge of the "Bank robber's" actions. It still seems irrelevent to "pretend to be" the bank robber. Either the judgement of the action is done from your Knowledge set in which case it seems ( having never robbed a bank) that you judge the action to be unacceptable, from the Bank robbers Knowledge set in which case you judge the robbery to be accepable or from a null set in which case you don't care. I am still failing to see the need for an impossible assumption of "bank robberishness"

  As a non-bank-robber and never pondering their perspective, I will not know what remedy will be effective.  Besides, I am not talking about pretending or having the bank robbers entire knowledge set, including their faulty ethical system - only the knowledge of what took place.  I'm only trying to consider what sanction I would want applied to me that would seem correct, if I were in the same situation (except for the situation of having the faulty ethics).  That is why I brought up the example of the guy who unknowingly buys stolen property.  He will be sanctioned (even by the anarchocapitalists) simply for doing an "action" that is wrong.  Yet it is hard not to imagine being upset if you found out stuff you owned could be confiscated "justifiably" because of corrupt middleman.  But with the state and corporations we cannot escape that middleman.  Should we give up property that we "paid for" but do not "own"?  I do not know a way to resolve this without considering the knowledge sets.

[Robert Stempien]

I think Murray rothbard suggested that if one person can show recorded proof that land was taken from his ancestor by the ancestor if the current owner than that owner would have to give back the land or pay it back in restitution. So rothbard basically compromised and said land should only be returned as far back as the records go. If u want to be real technical though, everyone in the United states who isn't a Native America most likely owns land that started as being stolen from a Native American

[STer]

 

I think Murray rothbard suggested that if one person can show recorded proof that land was taken from his ancestor by the ancestor if the current owner than that owner would have to give back the land or pay it back in restitution. So rothbard basically compromised and said land should only be returned as far back as the records go. If u want to be real technical though, everyone in the United states who isn't a Native America most likely owns land that started as being stolen from a Native American

 

Very interesting if that's true about Rothbard's view on this. I wonder if Libertarians and Anarchists take that view seriously or kind of just ignore it. As you say, this issue would have huge implications with the US and Native Americans for example, with many well-documented examples of broken treaties and so on that could probably be shown. I think, at least for philosophical consistency, this issue can't be totally ignored.

[Robert Stempien]

 

 

I think Murray rothbard suggested that if one person can show recorded proof that land was taken from his ancestor by the ancestor if the current owner than that owner would have to give back the land or pay it back in restitution. So rothbard basically compromised and said land should only be returned as far back as the records go. If u want to be real technical though, everyone in the United states who isn't a Native America most likely owns land that started as being stolen from a Native American

 

Very interesting if that's true about Rothbard's view on this. I wonder if Libertarians and Anarchists take that view seriously or kind of just ignore it. As you say, this issue would have huge implications with the US and Native Americans for example, with many well-documented examples of broken treaties and so on that could probably be shown. I think, at least for philosophical consistency, this issue can't be totally ignored.

 

 

I believe Walter block has written about it, I don't think other libertarians have taken it seriously, but they probably just haven't heard the argument, Rothbard has written so much that its hard to read everything he has written. I myself am prepaird to pay restitution to a Native American if they demonstrate proof that my house was stolen from their ancestors. its possible though that a lot of Native Americans could be persuaded to not press charges

[Agalloch]

 

 

 

I think Murray rothbard suggested that if one person can show recorded proof that land was taken from his ancestor by the ancestor if the current owner than that owner would have to give back the land or pay it back in restitution. So rothbard basically compromised and said land should only be returned as far back as the records go. If u want to be real technical though, everyone in the United states who isn't a Native America most likely owns land that started as being stolen from a Native American

 

Very interesting if that's true about Rothbard's view on this. I wonder if Libertarians and Anarchists take that view seriously or kind of just ignore it. As you say, this issue would have huge implications with the US and Native Americans for example, with many well-documented examples of broken treaties and so on that could probably be shown. I think, at least for philosophical consistency, this issue can't be totally ignored.

 

 

I believe Walter block has written about it, I don't think other libertarians have taken it seriously, but they probably just haven't heard the argument, Rothbard has written so much that its hard to read everything he has written. I myself am prepaird to pay restitution to a Native American if they demonstrate proof that my house was stolen from their ancestors. its possible though that a lot of Native Americans could be persuaded to not press charges

 

Or just don't take it seriously becaue it's an invalid argument that makes a number of incorrect assumptions.

The most pressing is the assumption that being someone's descendant gives you any right over their property. That's a workable solution to a single generation inheritance where no record of the actual wishes of the deceased is left. Even that isn't Universal though, with legal disputes between children and the spouse of parents being common. I don't see any reason why people I haven't met who happen to be the offspring of my great grand children, suddenly have a right to my property.

There's also the problem of justification of the original property. Does a descendant of a Monarch of England have a claim to the whole of England? No? What about the descendant of a Lord that was given land by the Monarch, made lots of money off the land, gave up the land and title, passed his money down three generations, to someone who bought a large home with it, and then a few generations later they had that home taken by the State? Is that land the descendants?

Then there's the problem with "proof". If the actual current owner of some amount of property is the descendant of some "rightful" owner but can't prove it, does a descendant with a better genealogy have a stronger claim to the land?

Also, to add to the absurdity, nearly every single person on this board, and that this board knows, or has ever met, is descended from Charlemagne and his contemparies. That gives us only about 1200 years of arbitary justification of our property claims, from a time when nearly all claims are completely unjustificalbe because of Feudalism and the fact we're all one big happy family.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

I think Murray rothbard suggested that if one person can show recorded proof that land was taken from his ancestor by the ancestor if the current owner than that owner would have to give back the land or pay it back in restitution. So rothbard basically compromised and said land should only be returned as far back as the records go. If u want to be real technical though, everyone in the United states who isn't a Native America most likely owns land that started as being stolen from a Native American

 

Very interesting if that's true about Rothbard's view on this. I wonder if Libertarians and Anarchists take that view seriously or kind of just ignore it. As you say, this issue would have huge implications with the US and Native Americans for example, with many well-documented examples of broken treaties and so on that could probably be shown. I think, at least for philosophical consistency, this issue can't be totally ignored.

 

 

I believe Walter block has written about it, I don't think other libertarians have taken it seriously, but they probably just haven't heard the argument, Rothbard has written so much that its hard to read everything he has written. I myself am prepaird to pay restitution to a Native American if they demonstrate proof that my house was stolen from their ancestors. its possible though that a lot of Native Americans could be persuaded to not press charges

 

Or just don't take it seriously becaue it's an invalid argument that makes a number of incorrect assumptions.

The most pressing is the assumption that being someone's descendant gives you any right over their property. That's a workable solution to a single generation inheritance where no record of the actual wishes of the deceased is left. Even that isn't Universal though, with legal disputes between children and the spouse of parents being common. I don't see any reason why people I haven't met who happen to be the offspring of my great grand children, suddenly have a right to my property.

There's also the problem of justification of the original property. Does a descendant of a Monarch of England have a claim to the whole of England? No? What about the descendant of a Lord that was given land by the Monarch, made lots of money off the land, gave up the land and title, passed his money down three generations, to someone who bought a large home with it, and then a few generations later they had that home taken by the State? Is that land the descendants?

Then there's the problem with "proof". If the actual current owner of some amount of property is the descendant of some "rightful" owner but can't prove it, does a descendant with a better genealogy have a stronger claim to the land?

Also, to add to the absurdity, nearly every single person on this board, and that this board knows, or has ever met, is descended from Charlemagne and his contemparies. That gives us only about 1200 years of arbitary justification of our property claims, from a time when nearly all claims are completely unjustificalbe because of Feudalism and the fact we're all one big happy family.

 

You make a lot of points demonstrating how difficult it is to pinpoint which descendants have any claims to property passed down or to sensibly deal with that issue. And they are all worth considering. But there is another potential absurdity that must be balanced with these. And that is that it seems absurd to say that if you steal from someone, but just manage to hold on to it until you die, then your family can have it from now into eternity scot-free.

I'm not claiming to have any easy answers to these challenges. My point is simply that you can't really clearly define or implement a non-aggression principle without taking a clear stance on some of these issues - both the ones you raise and the one I'm raising.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Or just don't take it seriously becaue it's an invalid argument that makes a number of incorrect assumptions.

The most pressing is the assumption that being someone's descendant gives you any right over their property. That's a workable solution to a single generation inheritance where no record of the actual wishes of the deceased is left. Even that isn't Universal though, with legal disputes between children and the spouse of parents being common. I don't see any reason why people I haven't met who happen to be the offspring of my great grand children, suddenly have a right to my property.

There's also the problem of justification of the original property. Does a descendant of a Monarch of England have a claim to the whole of England? No? What about the descendant of a Lord that was given land by the Monarch, made lots of money off the land, gave up the land and title, passed his money down three generations, to someone who bought a large home with it, and then a few generations later they had that home taken by the State? Is that land the descendants?

Then there's the problem with "proof". If the actual current owner of some amount of property is the descendant of some "rightful" owner but can't prove it, does a descendant with a better genealogy have a stronger claim to the land?

Also, to add to the absurdity, nearly every single person on this board, and that this board knows, or has ever met, is descended from Charlemagne and his contemparies. That gives us only about 1200 years of arbitary justification of our property claims, from a time when nearly all claims are completely unjustificalbe because of Feudalism and the fact we're all one big happy family.

 

My understanding of NAP is that it only applies to individuals. As long as I did not use force to get property from you, you’ve got no claim against me. If you steal ten bucks from me, can my kid beat your kid up and demand the money back?

If I’m a 1/13th Navajo and I bought a piece of land from a guy who is 3/5th Apache. Now, another guy who is 14/15th Iroquois claims that the land belongs to him since his ancestors used to live there. First of all, all of these tribes were migratory and at some point may or may not have occupied any given piece of land, and in many cases had no notion of land ownership. Now the question is who owns who the restitution, and most importantly how much?

To take a less American-centric example, let’s take a look at a small village in southern Poland. It might have been occupied by different nations throughout history with previous owners savagely dislocated. So, now you have descendants of Romans, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Russians, Jews, Germans, and Polish fighting over it. Whose claim is superior?

 

 And that is that it seems absurd to say that if you steal from someone, but just manage to hold on to it until you die, then your family can have it from now into eternity scot-free.

 

Perhaps the issue is in the “transfer-upon-death.” As far as most common laws go, the estate of the deceased continues ownership and claims could be made against it. The debts and claims have to be paid first before the transfer of the remainder takes place to the descendants. So, no, if somebody stole something from you and died, you can claim restitution against his estate.

 

[nathanm]

I don't mean to jab darkskyabove or anything, I had to look it up myself to be sure.  But…technically speaking, the thread should be "Whose Money Is It?"

usage: A common written mistake is to confuse who's with whose. The form who's represents a contraction of ‘who is’ or ‘who has’: who's going to feed the dog? | I wonder who's left the light on again? The word whose is a possessive pronoun or adjective: whose is this? | whose turn is it?

[Guest darkskyabove]

[swatfly]

Good catch. Far too late to edit. I even repeated the mistake, at least once, in a later post.

[STer]

 

 

 And that is that it seems absurd to say that if you steal from someone, but just manage to hold on to it until you die, then your family can have it from now into eternity scot-free.

 

Perhaps the issue is in the “transfer-upon-death.” As far as most common laws go, the estate of the deceased continues ownership and claims could be made against it. The debts and claims have to be paid first before the transfer of the remainder takes place to the descendants. So, no, if somebody stole something from you and died, you can claim restitution against his estate.

 

That would be a solution if the laws were fair. But many of the situations we're talking about took place in environments so corrupt that it was the laws themselves that helped the theft take place. Native Americans couldn't usually successfully sue those who took their land for restitution. It was often the government itself that broke treaties. Many of these people have been fighting to get that land back for generations. So yes if you have fair and honest restitution laws then you are right that this problem might not arise. The question is what is justifiable when restitution also fails to right the situation?

And this is not even to mention the fact that many of the supporters of the NAP see lack of a government as one of the consequences of it. So in that case there would be no court in which to sue them for restitution the way you seem to be thinking of it. I guess you'd have to have some dispute resolution entities for cases like this. If those entities were fair and proper then it could be a potential solution.

[RestoringGuy]

So far no dead people have come to me and said "I want you to respect my wishes for transfer of property to my  descendants/heirs!".  Unless there is an afterlife, I do not think that can ever happen.

It does not matter whose claim is superior, because an owner who dies ceases to be an owner.  Superior claim is based on an owner who can say what is a superior choice.  Their contracts also die, because their signature is only an artifact of a being no longer able to exercise rights.  It seems to me the only way the dead can own things is if one believes they are somehow in heaven holding the property until the right living person of their choice on earth is ready to receive it.  Atheism seems to require that inheritance of property is only.a loose matter of convention (good manners, reciprocation, etc.).

[Existing Alternatives]

 

So far no dead people have come to me and said "I want you to respect my wishes for transfer of property to my  descendants/heirs!".  Unless there is an afterlife, I do not think that can ever happen.

It does not matter whose claim is superior, because an owner who dies ceases to be an owner.  Superior claim is based on an owner who can say what is a superior choice.  Their contracts also die, because their signature is only an artifact of a being no longer able to exercise rights.  It seems to me the only way the dead can own things is if one believes they are somehow in heaven holding the property until the right living person of their choice on earth is ready to receive it.  Atheism seems to require that inheritance of property is only.a loose matter of convention (good manners, reciprocation, etc.).

 

By that logic, there will be no transfer to the descendants as well. If all contracts cease upon death, all property should go to some sort of free-for-all pile.

Fortunately, current precedent based common-law legal system (which is considered to be very much DRO-like or at least DRO-compatible) provides a solution for these type of problem, by creating estates. Estates are extension of dead people, if you will. Thus, while no dead person can be forced to satisfy contracts, estate can be. And yes, any unsettled contract is superior to will prescriptions. This arrangement strikes me as very much non-aggressive, so I don’t see any reason for it to disappear or be at odds with any anarchic society.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

 

 

 And that is that it seems absurd to say that if you steal from someone, but just manage to hold on to it until you die, then your family can have it from now into eternity scot-free.

 

Perhaps the issue is in the “transfer-upon-death.” As far as most common laws go, the estate of the deceased continues ownership and claims could be made against it. The debts and claims have to be paid first before the transfer of the remainder takes place to the descendants. So, no, if somebody stole something from you and died, you can claim restitution against his estate.

 

That would be a solution if the laws were fair. But many of the situations we're talking about took place in environments so corrupt that it was the laws themselves that helped the theft take place. Native Americans couldn't usually successfully sue those who took their land for restitution. It was often the government itself that broke treaties. Many of these people have been fighting to get that land back for generations. So yes if you have fair and honest restitution laws then you are right that this problem might not arise. The question is what is justifiable when restitution also fails to right the situation?

And this is not even to mention the fact that many of the supporters of the NAP see lack of a government as one of the consequences of it. So in that case there would be no court in which to sue them for restitution the way you seem to be thinking of it. I guess you'd have to have some dispute resolution entities for cases like this. If those entities were fair and proper then it could be a potential solution.

 

My response was to your specific question regarding “transfer-upon-death” issue, which I think does have an existing solution.

I totally agree with you, the bigger issue of multi-generational transfers is too complex for any restitution laws to handle. And very likely unsolvable. Hence my example…

 

 

If I’m a 1/13th Navajo and I bought a piece of land from a guy who is 3/5th Apache. Now, another guy who is 14/15th Iroquois claims that the land belongs to him since his ancestors used to live there. First of all, all of these tribes were migratory and at some point may or may not have occupied any given piece of land, and in many cases had no notion of land ownership. Now the question is who owns who the restitution, and most importantly how much?

To take a less American-centric example, let’s take a look at a small village in southern Poland. It might have been occupied by different nations throughout history with previous owners savagely dislocated. So, now you have descendants of Romans, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Russians, Jews, Germans, and Polish fighting over it. Whose claim is superior?

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Now that everyone has done such a magnificent job at debating the issue of land, let me be the big thorn and point out that my OP was not just about property. Wealth was included.

Being a Linux user, I will shamelessly use the example of Microsoft.

Bill Gate's fortune is largely predicated on governmental support, both primarily, by sales to government, and secondarily, by regulations that stifle competition. (Do I smell crony capitalism wafting on the breeze from Redmond.)

Is the money really his, considering that much of it was made at the expense of taxpayers who never bought his products?

Don't get me started on Buffet! The Big Crony!

[Agalloch]

 

Now that everyone has done such a magnificent job at debating the issue of land, let me be the big thorn and point out that my OP was not just about property. Wealth was included.

Being a Linux user, I will shamelessly use the example of Microsoft.

Bill Gate's fortune is largely predicated on governmental support, both primarily, by sales to government, and secondarily, by regulations that stifle competition. (Do I smell crony capitalism wafting on the breeze from Redmond.)

Is the money really his, considering that much of it was made at the expense of taxpayers who never bought his products?

Don't get me started on Buffet! The Big Crony!

 

Of all the industries I would choose, Software is the last one I would choose as an example of "regulations that stifle compeition". It's one of the few skilled professions I know of in America that doesn't require licensing, where released products don't have to meet a minimum set of requirements and where companies that enter into the market don't have to be granted permission to begin or continue working - which is why the overwhelming number of Statists in Software blows my mind. Yes, Microsoft made alot of Government sales, especially in the late eighties and early nineties, when they were already huge, and when their market was already large. Of course, the Government could just have easily bought tonnes of SCO UNIX, DR-DOS, CP/M or picked up Linux.Kernel 0.0.1 and an early GNU build; but that's pretty much the history of the world. Literally no industry can run without Government or unaffected by it, and it seems so childish, so meaningless to even mention this one in particular. Linux's development would probably be completely different if not for the Government, so what.

Note, it wasn't until the late nineties, when people (Novell?) started using the power of the State to try and crush the relatively free market Microsoft that it discovered the power of the State and started trying to use it itself. However, that's inevitable, people will always try and wield the State to protect themselves from others doing the same to them. AFAIK Margerine has the same history, but people are so childish about this Microsoft thing.

No part of the economy is how it would be without the State. I might have more money, I might have much less, I might not exist. No single entity has benefited or fallen because of the Government, we are overall worse off.

[RestoringGuy]

By that logic, there will be no transfer to the descendants as well. If all contracts cease upon death, all property should go to some sort of free-for-all pile.

Fortunately, current precedent based common-law legal system (which is considered to be very much DRO-like or at least DRO-compatible) provides a solution for these type of problem, by creating estates. Estates are extension of dead people, if you will. Thus, while no dead person can be forced to satisfy contracts, estate can be. And yes, any unsettled contract is superior to will prescriptions. This arrangement strikes me as very much non-aggressive, so I don’t see any reason for it to disappear or be at odds with any anarchic society.

Correct.  Whether a DRO-compatible estate is a thing believed in as having moral truth, or whether God is believed in who morally directs us, the result is the same:  We get an involuntary coercion of people who do not agree with the conventional fiction, carried out by believers who initiate force based on pure faith in some entity.  If a person rejects the precedent and claims the unattended property of the dead, then there only two choices.  One can allow it to happen because it is not morally disagreeable, or one can overlay moral beliefs based on a unproven entity who "holds" the property and use that as a theory to initiate force.

It would seem to me the only reason to not "steal" the property of the dead is a concern for everybody else who wants a piece of the action.  They feel excluded, just as we all are when some rich kid gets a billion dollars without doing anything to earn it.  In anarchic society, I think the estate idea only holds for those who sign on to playing by those arbitrary rules.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Correct.  Whether a DRO-compatible estate is a thing believed in as having moral truth, or whether God is believed in who morally directs us, the result is the same:  We get an involuntary coercion of people who do not agree with the conventional fiction, carried out by believers who initiate force based on pure faith in some entity.  If a person rejects the precedent and claims the unattended property of the dead, then there only two choices.  One can allow it to happen because it is not morally disagreeable, or one can overlay moral beliefs based on a unproven entity who "holds" the property and use that as a theory to initiate force.

 

I think the problem is with the concept of attendance. How do you know any given property to be unattended? Estate solve this by creating “attendance.”

 

It would seem to me the only reason to not "steal" the property of the dead is a concern for everybody else who wants a piece of the action.  They feel excluded, just as we all are when some rich kid gets a billion dollars without doing anything to earn it.  In anarchic society, I think the estate idea only holds for those who sign on to playing by those arbitrary rules.

 

True. But that would bring us back to compatibility of these “arbitrary” laws. It would be hard to imagine two individuals signing a contract, if their concepts of property are not compatible.