A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

[BorisM]

It has to do with property rights. a not so obvious mis-understanding of property rights. Three of the basic principles of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosiphy, as I understand it are: "self-ownership" & "The non-agression principle" and "equality of rights". The concept of private property is based upon the notion that if one owns oneself, then it reasons that he has a right to own that which he produces, or that which would not have existed had he not created it(i.e. the fruits of his labor). This is the basic moral justification for property rights based on self-ownership. The non-agression principle says that no one may use agression to forcibly deprive anyone of their rightful property(among other rights as well). On these principles, I am in full agreement. However, how do these principles apply to forms of "property"(for lack of a better term), that are not a product of human labor? for example: the air we breath, unimproved land, undiscovered natural resources, bandwidth, etc... This is a complicated question, because if one cannot "own" or at least "exclusively control" these valuable resources which are a necessary factor in the production of wealth & capital, then obviously no wealth, or capital can be produced. For one to be able to "create" legitimate private property one must be able to access these resources.(for example: put the most ambitious, hard-working man in an empty room for several hours, come back and ask him what he was able to produce and the answer will be nothing. It is physically impossibe to create something from nothing. Labor itself can produce nothing tangible without resources to work with.)

 

The question is "who" is entitled to these necessary resources, and "how much" are they entitled to, being that no human being created them(i.e. they are not the fruits of anyones labor)? The typical libertarian/anarcho-capitalist response for the justification of private property in previously un-owned land & natural resources is the homesteading principle, or the Lockean principle that when one mixes his labor with the land or natural resources he creates something previously non-existent that is rightfully his private property. After this homesteading has ocurred, this rightful property may be voluntarily bought, sold, or traded, indefinately. While this sounds reasonable on the surface, I intend to prove that this principle is inherently flawed and inconsistent with self-ownership & equality of rights.

 

The biggest problem with the homesteading principle is that valuable land and natural resources are fixed in supply(at least those accessible here on planet earth) and once all the land and natural resources have been homesteaded, homesteading no longer becomes an option. All of a sudden we have property rights based on "first come, first-served", rather than on the principle of self-ownership and equality of rights. If we are all truly created equal, and have equal unailienable rights, do we not all have a common and equal right to access natural property without which legitimate man-made property can not exist? Can private property in "the fruits of one's labor" exist if the right to create such property does not exist? Can the right to private property even exist at all, if there is no inherent right to create private property? If "first come, first served" trumps equal rights then only those who got here first have property rights, and those that did not "get in on the ground floor" have no rights at all. To deny any person the right to some land, oxygen, water, etc... is to deny said person's right to even exist at all! Is a right to life at all possible without an inherent right to live off the land, to breathe the air, to drink water, to produce and consume food? Without some access to the earth, one may only exist by permission of those that do own the earth. The moral question being: Is the right to access the land & natural resources that are necessary for life an equal right applicable to all human beings, or is it a conditional priviledge based on first-come first served?

 

One may argue that there is still some land available for homesteading somewhere(though I'm not sure that this is true), but is it fair that someone be required to leave the land he was born on and travel many miles, in order to search for inhabitable land somewhere else? Isn't it very likely that any un-owned land is of inferior quality to that which has already been homesteaded? Does not the person who has first access to a plot of land containing valuable minerals, or crude oil have an obvious advantage over one who's only option is to homestead a plot of near worthless land in the desert? Does mixing one's labor with the land for a short period of time give one a perpetual monopoly over that piece of land forever?

 

There are many books and articles adressing this issue, and I have linked to many of them below. Unfortunately, most come from a minarchist perspective allowing for a certain amount of government to enforce a solution. I believe there are better ways to correct this injustice without using the coercive force of "government", however this issue does need to be addressed, for without a proper understanding of our equal right to access the natural world, we allow for a new state to come into existence in the form of the land monopolist. A "government" by any other name is still a "government"(a government being defined as an entity presumed the right to initiate force over a certain geographical area). Read: "a landlord is a government" linked below.

 

What it all really boils down to is this: Which is a higher moral principle "equality of rights", or "first come first-served"? Is a person not justified in using defensive force against anyone attempting to aggressively infringe upon his right of access to land, air, water, & other natural resources?

 

Links:

A Landlord is a government:

http://libertythinkers.com/education/a-landlord-is-a-government-the-libertarian-basis-for-land-rights/

 

Are you a "royal" libertarian, or a "real" libertarian?:

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

 

Progress & Poverty:

http://mises.org/books/progress_poverty_george.pdf

 

Libertarian party at sea on land:

http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Party-at-Sea-Land/dp/0911312978

[masonman]

I highly recommend this article from We the Individuals:http://wetheindividuals.org/2013/08/26/feudalism-disguised-as-egalitarianism-a-critique-of-georgism/ 

To deny any person the right to some land, oxygen, water, etc... is to deny said person's right to even exist at all!

 What about food? Healthcare? If somebody is dying of a disease, if others do not provide medical treatment are they denying his right to exist? If somebody doesn't provide the person with food is he denying that persons right to exist?Land and oxygen and water ALONE are not enough to live, either. Why set the bar at that exact point? 

Is a right to life at all possible without an inherent right to live off the land, to breathe the air, to drink water, to produce and consume food?

How can people have the right and not have the right at the same time? If you take the land somebody else owned "rightfully," you are denying property rights while also using property rights, and just making an arbitrary distiction about how much a man has a "right" to land, air, and water. Who decides how much water, air, and land is enough for each man? 

I believe there are better ways to correct this injustice without using the coercive force of "government"

 What sorts of ways? How do you distrubute access natural resources "fairly" without some entity that forces what it considers to be "fair" onto other people?

[MysterionMuffles]

Boris M, welcome to the boards. You raise some very good and challenging questions! I only have kindergarten level understanding of economics, so excuse me if my answers don't bear any validity.

 

I would agree that the first come first serve principle is what gives them the right to exercise labour upon the land, and if they can find a good use for it why not? How long will it take til someone else comes along and discovers this piece of land's existence? Even if they are the first to find it though, it doesn't mean that they will strip all of its resources for whatever they want to produce. So if someone else comes along and has interest in the land, by then it should be marked with a sign with the original owner that it is under their private property, but that doesn't mean the newcomers can't negotiate split ownership.

 

Say the first owner found a huge forest of trees that contain tea leaves, and that's all he wants to extract from that land. He owns the property for a while and does his tea business, but then a lumberjack comes along and wants to use the trees for lumber. Assuming he doesn't start clear cutting due to being unable to see the ownership sign, or is just a complete asshole--he would contact the tea man and work out an agreement. They can negotiate if the lumberjack chops down trees, but then how will the tea man deal with the loss of resources? He can't possibly use every tree unless he has a huge team on his side that extracts all the leaves they can. 

 

I would imagine they would work out an agreement that the teaman must take every possible leaf from the trees he will allow the lumberjack to cut down. Or a certain row of them. Or at a certain season where the leaves are non-existent, with the agreement that they must also hire someone else to help plant new trees if it seems like the logging may require more than what actually exists at the forest.

 

Again I only have kindergarten knowledge on business or economics, but that would be my guess. As for having monopoly on the land, you can always divide the land if someone else wants to use different aspects of it, and hey maybe they can help build each other's business? The logger can help hire contractors to build the teaman a little tea shop, the tea man can...invite the lumberjacks in for some tea and biscuits on breaks? Who knows? LOL see really kindergarten stuff And there's always the choice to relinquish ownership when you have no use for it anymore, and to look for more land in the meantime right? 

[BorisM]

To Masonman, you say: "What about food? Healthcare? If somebody is dying of a disease, if others do not provide medical treatment are they denying his right to exist? If somebody doesn't provide the person with food is he denying that persons right to exist?

 

Land and oxygen and water ALONE are not enough to live, either. Why set the bar at that exact point?"

 

Comparing healthcare to access to natural resources is comparing apples to oranges. I have no right to healthcare, because that would imply that someone else has an obligation to provide me with healthcare, which would be a violation of their rights. No person has to provide land/air/water as nature has already provided it. a landowner does not "provide" land, he only monopolizes a particular piece of land. The land was there long before he even existed. BIG difference.

[MysterionMuffles]

...and what about my argument?

[BorisM]

I don't claim to have the perfect solution to the problem, all that I am saying is the system that we have now whereby an individual or organization can own unlimited amounts of land whether they're using it productively or not, thus denying other individuals any land at all is inherently unjust.

 

Libertarians claim the right to life is sacred, but without some access to land/air/water, etc... the right to life does not exist. Don't believe me? catapult yourself into outer space where there's no air/water/land & see how long you can survive.

 

I'm also trying to point out the fact that private property in the fruits of ones labor is inherently different than private property in something that is a gift from nature. Private property in gifts of nature is NOT based on the principle of self-ownership.

 

Once again, I don't have all the answers. There are some ideas in the links I provided. Some I agree with more than others. Basically I just want to get people to start thinking differently and realising that land & natural resources are a different type of "property" than are the fruits of human labor, and that maybe, just maybe, we ought to look at them in a different way.

[MysterionMuffles]

You barely addressed what I said about negotiation possibilities...

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This has cropped up many times. Anyone can use the natural resources and space to create property. People are just so used to states drawing imaginary lines around massive areas of the earth and declaring "That's ours now". 

If someone is deliberately preventing someone else from essential things like air, land or water then that may be considered an act of aggression but it only happens with states. The only way I know to fully understand why this is not a problem (much less a fatal one) is to play out a scenario. If you provide a such a scenario I'll try to show you why this problem has been solved.

[BorisM]

To: Mysterian muffles. I'm not sure that I completely get your point, but I certainly like the idea of two people peacefully negotiating who gets the leaves & who gets the lumber in a given forest. Unfortuneately, that's not the system today. In today's society someone has a government granted title to that forest stating that he's the legal owner. NOT based on self-ownership & the fact that the the forest is the fruit of his labor. Now maybe he bought the land with legitimately aquired money, but did the previous owner have any more legitimate right to it than you, me, or anyone else?

 

Fact is you can trace the buying and selling of that piece of land back as far as you want & you will never trace it back to the person that produced it, because no human being did. If we base property rights on the the theory that everyone has property rights to that which he has produced(based on self-ownership) than this principle does not apply to land and natural resources.

 

In your scenario(given today's rules), if the guy that was harvesting the leaves has title to the land, he can refuse to negotiate with the guy that wants the lumber. He could demand an outragious price. Hell, he could even tell the lumberjack "screw you" and kill all the trees & let the lumber rot on the ground! Why?...Not because he produced the trees, or purchased them from the person that originally produced the trees, but because he has a states issued title based loosely on the principle "I got here first".

[MysterionMuffles]

Oh I see, maybe I've misunderstood your question. Did you want to know how land ownership would work in a stateless society, or how does the NAP and self ownership apply in our current system? If it's the latter, then a simple "it doesn't," would be my answer, and that's the problem.

 

The tea man can tell the lumberjack to FO but then that'd be his own problem. I don't know why he would if he's a reasonable business man. Help me understand if you're not intentionally assuming that all property owners are just dicks, because to me in that scenario you put forth, you predicate on the idea that land ownership also adds asshole qualities to the owners lol.

[BorisM]

Proffessional Teabagger, Here's a scenario: Bob is homeless. Standing before Bob is 1000's of acres of unsettled wilderness. Bob ventures into the wilderness, works hard, builds a cabin, clears some land, and grows some crops. Bob becomes self-sufficient. A primitive lifestyle perhaps, but better than being homeless on the street.Several weeks go by & the man that has a "legal" title granting ownership of that 1000 acres of wilderness catches wind of Bob's tresspassing. He calls the police, shows them the deed to the land, has Bob evicted, burns the cabin & the crops Bob planted. Bob, who worked dilligently to build a cabin & grow crops in the wilderness is now once again homeless & hungry.Is this just? Is this liberty? If not, what's the solution?

[amprice6]

I have questions regarding economic and urban devolpment in developing countries with extremely large incoming working populations like India and African countries. I want to be able to advocate as much private industry for infrastructure development as possible and I feel that Stefan and other anarcho-capitalists will be able to help with my arguments. Any thoughts? How can a city develop and grow economically without the state enforcing eminent domain?

[MysterionMuffles]

I would safely assume that business owners are rational people capable of negotiations. He can't deny an opportunity to be bought out for a huge sum if he's had his share in the tea business. Otherwise, there's always options. In the case he wants to say no to co-operating the lumberjack should have to respect his decision or learn how to increase his incentives to hand the land over to him. If there's a discrepancy and it gets ugly...well damn, they are some seriously dysfunctional people who have no place in the world of business lol. There is so much land around and the lumberjack can easily look for new faces of land for his logging, or in the meantime the tea man can look for a relocation assuming of course he can find another forest with the same tea leaves or better.

[BorisM]

Mysterian Muffles, I'm not assuming that all land-owners are dicks, I'm just stating that "under our current system", landowners have the "legal" right to be dicks, if they so choose.

 

I'm also not assuming that in a stateless society land ownership would be viewed the same as it is in today's statist society. Quite the contrary, I believe it would be viewed quite differently. What I'm trying to do is get people thinking of how we might view land ownership in a stateless society. How might we allow "exlusive use" of land & resources in a way that optimises it's productivity, while at the same time allowing everyone the "equal right" to use land and resources productively.

 

This post is more of a question than a statement. Hopefully it's gotten some people thinking.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Proffessional Teabagger, Here's a scenario: Bob is homeless. Standing before Bob is 1000's of unsettled wilderness. Bob ventures into the wilderness, works hard, builds a cabin, clears some land, and grows some crops. Bob becomes self-sufficient. A primitive lifestyle perhaps, but better than being homeless on the street.Several weeks go by & the man that has a "legal" title granting ownership of that 1000 acres of wilderness catches wind of Bob's tresspassing. He calls the police, shows them the deed to the land, has Bob evicted, burns the cabin & the crops Bob planted. Bob, who worked dilligently to build a cabin & grow crops in the wilderness is now once again homeless & hungry.Is this just? Is this liberty? If not, what's the solution?

Why would a person in an anarchistic society have a "legal" title? Who grants that? If he somehow had this "legal" title then why didn't he take responsibility and warn others that the land is reserved? Even if such a thing could happen why wouldn't he owe the homeless man compensation for his/her gross negligence in not warning people who may want to use the land. The scenario is not realistic within a Libertarian society context. You have to provide a scenario that happens with an anarchistic context, not a state one (as "legal" title implies).

[BorisM]

True in an anarchistic society no one would technically have a "legal" title to land any more than they would have a "legal" title to a car, boat, etc... However just because there is no "legal" title to a car, or anything else does not mean someone doesn't have a moral right to own it. Does the man that claims to own that 1000 acres of wilderness have a "moral" right to own it? If so, what justifies his claim. Does putting up a sign warning the vagrant that it belongs to him justify his ownership? does putting a fence around it?

 

That's the point I'm trying to make. What morally justifies ownership of something that one did not produce? I apologise, if I implied that all anarchists are in agreement with our current statist system. I don't mean to imply that. I'm just saying that the homesteading principle, that many anarcho-capitalists support does not make sense once all of a finite supply of land and resources has alredy been homesteaded, leaving newcomers without the option of homesteading that their predecessors had.

[wdiaz03]

Mysterian Muffles, I'm not assuming that all land-owners are dicks, I'm just stating that "uner are current system", landowners have the "legal" right to be dicks, if they so choose.I'm also not assuming that in a stateless society land ownership would be viewed the same as it is in today's statist society. Quite the contrary, I believe it would be viewed quite differently. What I'm trying to do is get people thinking of how we might view land ownership in a stateless society. How might we allow "exlusive use" of land 7 resources in a way that optimises it's productivity, while at the same time allowing everyone the "equal right" to use land and resources productively.This post is more of a question than a statement. Hopefully it's gotten some people thinking.

 

There has been a lot of writing on this subject, have you heard of the "homestead principle"?

 

 

Proffessional Teabagger, Here's a scenario: Bob is homeless. Standing before Bob is 1000's of unsettled wilderness. Bob ventures into the wilderness, works hard, builds a cabin, clears some land, and grows some crops. Bob becomes self-sufficient. A primitive lifestyle perhaps, but better than being homeless on the street.Several weeks go by & the man that has a "legal" title granting ownership of that 1000 acres of wilderness catches wind of Bob's tresspassing. He calls the police, shows them the deed to the land, has Bob evicted, burns the cabin & the crops Bob planted. Bob, who worked dilligently to build a cabin & grow crops in the wilderness is now once again homeless & hungry.Is this just? Is this liberty? If not, what's the solution?

 

Ok, why didn't Bob check with the local authority regarding the ownership status of this land prior to building his farm?

 

He could then contact the owner and work out some sort of deal? he should have followed whatever legal means to become an owner.

[BorisM]

For the record, I consider myself an anarchist. I am in no way advocating that the "government" owns the land, or even that the "government" should decide who gets to use the land, as some Georgists do. I am simply stating that that I believe we all have an inherent and equal right to live on the planet we were born on. Is this unreasonable?

 

Obviously, if something is fixed in supply, then the only way one can own a larger share is for someone else to own a lessor share, or no share at all. This is basic math. It's also obviously impractical to re-draw property lines every time a new person is born, or enters into adulthood.

 

How then would a stateless society reasonably insure that no-one is denied their "equal right" to live off the bounty that nature(not man) has given us?

[Rob_Ilir]

A child is born to parents that wanted them and made enough research and investment on their future. The parents would be part of a community, and even an insurance agency to mitigate their burden. 

 

Obviously nobody can predict the future, but a child being born into such a place with support, will have enough skills and networks for other people to utilise him/her. 

[Mike Larson]

To deny any person the right to some land, oxygen, water, etc... is to deny said person's right to even exist at all! Is a right to life at all possible without an inherent right to live off the land, to breathe the air, to drink water, to produce and consume food? Without some access to the earth, one may only exist by permission of those that do own the earth. The moral question being: Is the right to access the land & natural resources that are necessary for life an equal right applicable to all human beings, or is it a conditional priviledge based on first-come first served?

 

Ownership of natural resources is not required for survival. If a person is born into a free society where all of the natural resources are already legitimately owned, it just means that the "homesteading" method of obtaining wealth has been removed. But there are other options, like simply trading your labor or knowledge for wealth. And if everything is already owned, and we are talking about a free society, chances are that the opportunities for him to use his specific skills and talents to gain wealth will be abundant. He may also be gifted wealth as part of an inheritance. With the wealth that he acquires he may or may not choose to purchase "natural resources" from those who own them. He may be perfectly happing to live his entire life without ever owning a single natural resource.

[BorisM]

Mike Larson, Ownership of natural resources IS necessary for survival. As I stated earlier: Labor by itself is worth nothing. Labor without resources to interact with can produce nothing. A man that owns nothing but his labor can only produce what he needs for sustainance, if someone that owns resources gives him permission to produce. He is not free and independent. He is subservient to the person owning the land and/or resources.

 

He may ask the land/resource owner to allow him to work/produce, but that is not the same of having a right. A job is not a right, because it requires someone else to provide said job.

 

Ask yourself this: If a man does not have a right to be provided a job and he doesn't have a right to produce that which he needs to provide sustainance himself(because he only owns his labor, which can produce nothing without resources), then does he have a right to life?

 

You can't have it both ways. If you don't have a right to produce what you need to live, and no-one is obligated to provide you with the means to live, you're dead. Period. End of story.

[Mike Larson]

BorisM, The "use" of natural resources is necessary for survival, but not "ownership". I can borrow or rent natural resources. Every one of us requires the "permission" of others to survive when we first come into this world. We require the permission of our parents. We don't own anything except ourselves. From that starting point we begin the process (using our parents resources) of developing the ability to create value (either for ourselves or to exchange with others). And from there we can homestead (if that option is still available), work, trade, or receive gifts in order to obtain the necessities of life. We may or may not choose to own natural resources.

[BorisM]

We may be getting a bit off topic, but I believe parents have a moral obligation to provide for their children up until they are capable of providing for themselves. I don't believe that anyone in society has a moral obligation to sell, rent, give, or let me use any of their "legitimate" private property. I do believe I have a right to live. In order to live, I MUST have some resources, or I MUST be allowed to use someone elses resources, which requires "permission".

 

I either have the right to some of the resources provided by nature, or I have the right to resources that someone else produced, or I DON'T have a right to life. Which one is it?

[Guest darkskyabove]

I either have the right to some of the resources provided by nature, or I have the right to resources that someone else produced, or I DON'T have a right to life. Which one is it?

 

Are you implying that rights are a positive obligation on others? Following that train of thought to its ultimate destination results in claiming that the universe owes you the means to life. Who is supposed to protect your right to resources? Do you see the "permission" trap created by your own argument?

 

I think a clarification of context is in order. If the context is "How to make resources fairly available under current conditions", it would appear to be headed for an epic fail. This is one of the most common forms of attack against liberty: listing all the anti-liberty conditions, and claiming futility. If the context is "How to make resources fairly available starting from scratch", there is much more latitude, but the odds of this possibility are, essentially, non-existent.

 

That leaves one context: "How to change current conditions to allow resources to be fairly available." The problem is that few people will relinquish their attachment to one, or both, of the other contexts long enough to present a workable solution.

 

My suggested solution is liberty. No matter what happens, it is better to be free to choose, and fail, than to be compelled, and succeed. With liberty, failure can be reversed; with compulsion, success is a trap.

[MarkIX]

 "Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

--John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5

 

The "Mixing of Labour" one of the foundational ideas behind the "Homesteading Principle" with the oft neglected condition in bold. According to Mr Locke, mixing labour with land will not allow you to enclose the last land, because there must be "enough, and as good left in common for others". The problem of course is that "enough", "as good" and "others" are all words that are relative, meaning that any solution is going to have to be negotiated among "concerned parties" however far that reaches along with the understanding of just how much and what kind of labour has to be "mixed" with something to confer the right to property.

[BorisM]

Darskyabove,..."Are you implying that rights are a positive obligation on others?"...Absolutely not! I'm implying the exact opposite. I was making the point that "if" we are not entitled to a right that is a positive obligation on others, "then" we must have a right to provide for ourselves. Otherwise we're dead! A man that owns nothing but his labor cannot provide for himself because labor itself can produce nothing without resources.

 

In other words we either have rights that ARE obligations from others(NO!), or we have the right to use natural resourses to provide for ourselves(YES!). If we have neither we're dead! It has to be one or the other. I choose the latter. The first option is incompatible with the non-agression principle.

[Josh F]

I don't claim to have the perfect solution to the problem, all that I am saying is the system that we have now whereby an individual or organization can own unlimited amounts of land whether they're using it productively or not, thus denying other individuals any land at all is inherently unjust.

 

Are you a property owner? 

 

Land is currently owned by the US Government.  They sell off land titles (government) to people or companies for money.  Most of this land also includes a lean or taxes on the property. 

 

Land acquisition in a free market only comes out of laboring on that land. 

 

Which system inherently encourages the philosophy that "individuals or organizations can own unlimited amounts of land" and which one discourages it? 

[BorisM]

I would certainly agree that the homesteading principle is far superior to what we have now, however problems arise when we get to the point where there's nothing left to homestead. Problems also arise if/when most of the good land is bought up by a few individuals. Don't think so? Imagine hypothetically that one person eventually bought up the whole earth(I know this would be very improbabable, but it illustrates a point). Would that person not be the ultimate ruler of the world?

 

Highly concentrated land ownership can distort the economy as well. Keep a significant amount of land out of productive use & you have a surplus of labor chasing an artificially reduced supply of land & resources. Wages go down. Land price goes up. A windfall for land speculators, hard times for working people.

 

So what might be done regarding land in a stateless society? Scrap all land titles & start the homesteading process again from scratch? Might work for a while, until the point when it's all been homesteaded again. probably piss a bunch of people off in the process too!

[wdiaz03]

I would certainly agree that the homesteading principle is far superior to what we have now, however problems arise when we get to the point where there's nothing left to homestead. Problems also arise if/when most of the good land is bought up by a few individuals. Don't think so? Imagine hypothetically that one person eventually bought up the whole earth(I know this would be very improbabable, but it illustrates a point). Would that person not be the ultimate ruler of the world?Highly concentrated land ownership can distort the economy as well. Keep a significant amount of land out of productive use & you have a surplus of labor chasing an artificially reduced supply of land & resources. Wages go down. Land price goes up. A windfall for land speculators, hard times for working people.So what might be done regarding land in a stateless society? Scrap all land titles & start the homesteading process again from scratch? Might work for a while, until the point when it's all been homesteaded again. probably piss a bunch of people off in the process too!

 

It seems to me you are drowning on a puddle of water, you keep repeating the same things over and over but avoid seeing the obvious.

Plenty of people today start of with no resources, think immigrants? You come to this country, you work for someone else and save money then you buy land. That simple. In a modern economy with division of labor a person does not have to own LAND to survive. People don't want land. people what the product of the land and what it produces and they can buy that from producers.

[BorisM]

People survive & sometimes even thrive despite many injustices. People survive & sometimes thrive under fiat currency. People survive & sometimes thrive under ecxsessive goverment regulation. When chattle slavery was legal some slaves were able to save enough money to buy their own freedom and lead a better life. I could go on & on, however that doosn't change the fact that these things are unjust.

 

Think of how much more prosperous an immigrant, or anyone else might be without these injustices to overcome.

[wdiaz03]

People survive & sometimes even thrive despite many injustices. People survive & sometimes thrive under fiat currency. People survive & sometimes thrive under ecxsessive goverment regulation. When chattle slavery was legal some slaves were able to save enough money to buy their own freedom and lead a better life. I could go on & on, however that doosn't change the fact that these things are unjust.Think of how much more prosperous an immigrant, or anyone else might be without these injustices to overcome.

Some people are prettier than others, smarter, stronger, bigger, I could go on & on, are these unjust?

[LovePrevails]

 The non-agression principle says that no one may use agression to forcibly deprive anyone of their rightful property(among other rights as well). On these principles, I am in full agreement. However, how do these principles apply to forms of "property"(for lack of a better term), that are not a product of human labor? for example: the air we breath, unimproved land, undiscovered natural resources, bandwidth, etc... This is a complicated question, because if one cannot "own" or at least "exclusively control" these valuable resources which are a necessary factor in the production of wealth & capital, then obviously no wealth, or capital can be produced. For one to be able to "create" legitimate private property one must be able to access these resources.(for example: put the most ambitious, hard-working man in an empty room for several hours, come back and ask him what he was able to produce and the answer will be nothing. It is physically impossibe to create something from nothing. Labor itself can produce nothing tangible without resources to work with.)

 

 

I would just like to say I think this is a very legitimate point well argued and I would encourage you to phone into the show and discuss it with Stefmeister

 

I am of a view that this is something which could be arbitrated without the state, however, I have always thought it is one of the biggest gray areas, so bravo to you for presenting it.

[BorisM]

Wdiaz03, "Some people are prettier than others, smarter, stronger, bigger, I could go on & on, are these unjust?" - No, how does being prettier, smarter etc,...harm anyone else? It doesn't. If I exclude other people from something that they have a right to, I'm doing harm.

 

Denying someone the right to benefit from their "prettyness" Smartness", etc... would be an obvious violation of the right to self-ownership. Does claiming that all have an equal right to something that no-one produced violate self-ownership? No.

 

 

Loveprevails, "I am of a view that this is something which could be arbitrated without the state" - agreed, 100%! Like any other issue involving principle, the problem is in peoples heads.

 

People have been taught to view natural property the same way they view man-made property since they were little kids, much the same way they've been taught that government is a necessity since childhood. Once people understand that they do have some right to the natural world, I see no reason why they could not voluntarily organise to protect that right.

[wdiaz03]

Wdiaz03, "Some people are prettier than others, smarter, stronger, bigger, I could go on & on, are these unjust?" - No, how does being prettier, smarter etc,...harm anyone else? It doesn't. If I exclude other people from something that they have a right to, I'm doing harm.Denying someone the right to benefit from their "prettyness" Smartness", etc... would be an obvious violation of the right to self-ownership. Does claiming that all have an equal right to something that no-one produced violate self-ownership? No.Loveprevails, "I am of a view that this is something which could be arbitrated without the state" - agreed, 100%! Like any other issue involving principle, the problem is in peoples heads.People have been taught to view natural property the same way they view man-made property since they were little kids, much the same way they've been taught that government is a necessity since childhood. Once people understand that they do have some right to the natural world, I see no reason why they could not voluntarily organise to protect that right.

 

You assume people have a right to natural property. Two men in an island and one finds the only coconut left before the other, is that unjust? After all the guy will harm the other by not sharing it.

 

Say that one is taller than the other and can get to fruit the other man cannot reach, is that unjust? After all his tallness harms the other guy....

[BorisM]

Wdiaz03, "You assume people have a right to natural property." -Yes I do. If no one did the human race would not exist(but, I repeat myself). No offense, but if you think the human race can exist without a right to "natural property"(i.e. land, air, water), you are so detatched from reality that there's really no point in debating this issue any further.

 

The only rational question is: Is this an equal, universal, right, or a right applied only to those who got here first?

 

 

Comparing a world where there are resources a plenty, to two starving guys on an island fighting over the last coconut is again apples to oranges. I suppose the moral thing to do would be share the coconut, or better yet come up with a way to co-operate & grow more coconuts. I doubt that this would happen once the instinct for survival kicks in. In the real world there are plenty of natural resources to go around.

 

 

I really need to learn how to work this "quote" function, don't I(lol!)