A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

wdiaz03 · November 9, 2013

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

Just go to the message you want to quote and click the quote button. You can click any number of times to push the quote to your message.

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

Can you explain this a little more, What is the right you are talking about.

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 disagree, I think it is the same whether you have two people or a million with resources and the million and one has none.

Certainly the second guy can ask. he can plead, he can negotiate, but he has no right to the coconut that someone else found. This is the basis of a free market and NAP. In fact if the first guy is smart he would share it. next time he might be the one holding the shorter end of the stick. but he is not under any obligation to share.

I ask you. why do you want to make this a right? is it because you feel you have nothing of value to offer the world that you feel powerless if found in a similar situation? This type of thinking seems to come from people wanting some moral rule because either they have nothing to offer or they do not want to be thankful and show gratitude when receiving a handout. They want stuff as a right. Stefan has a podcast on this very topic exploring this type of thinking.

Omegahero09 · November 10, 2013

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).

They could have a sort of legal title via a DRO.

I think we have to remember BorisM that the human race will continue to push it's boundaries to accommodate for itself. I'd imagine that resource gathering in space will eventually be profitable- as the ability to travel and inhabit bodies in space. Also the cardinal law of capitalism: where there is demand- capitalists will supply it.

Demand for alternative food production? It'll be supplied. Demand for alternative fuel sources? It'll be supplied. Ad infinitum.

Mike Fleming · November 10, 2013

In my view it goes something like this. Part of the principle of owning land is having a legal protection, and ultimately actual security, over that land. This legal security would be provided by the network of DRO's, and hence would have a certain cost attached to it.

So, if say you were to put a fence around an area of land the size of a small country, that would have serious costs in terms of security. Maybe you want to defend it yourself and not go the DRO route. but it neither seems practical nor cost effective. Apart from where they live people will desire property that can be made cost-efficient for them so that they can easily cover the costs of the DRO agency for the legal protection. For this they have to meet the needs of consumers at large with the use of that land.

Given the tremendous amount of unused land in the world I don't think it's going to be a problem that either all land will be swallowed up or that most of it will and much of it lay unused just being the property of someone. It's just not practical in terms of security expense.

BorisM · November 10, 2013

We can agree to disagree on this issue, and that's fine, but you can't say you believe in equality of rights, if you believe some have a right to free land(via the homesteading process) and others don't, simply because they didn't get there in time."All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others" - I forget who said that, I think it was from Animal Farm.

Certainly the second guy can ask. he can plead, he can negotiate, but he has no right to the coconut that someone else found. This is the basis of a free market and NAP. In fact if the first guy is smart he would share it. next time he might be the one holding the shorter end of the stick. but he is not under any obligation to share.

Depends on what exactly you mean by "found". If he went foraging through the woods for hours to find the coconut, while the other guy sat on his ass, then yes the coconut would be his rightful property.Suppose though, both men on the island came upon a tree full of coconuts at the same time(let's assume for the sake of argument they're of similar height and are both able to reach the fruit). Would they not both have an equal right to the coconuts, or would the first guy to yell "mine!!!" be entitled to all of them?

MysterionMuffles · November 10, 2013

They could compete to see who can collect the most. It's only an abstraction to say one owns them all without physically having them i their possession.

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but free market is solely kept alive from competition because competition ensures quality. So if two guys were to come across the same piece of land and both want to own it, they can agree to at least "share" the resoruces and use them the way each individual wants to. They would then negotiate that whoever makes better use to those resources and sells more gets to have full ownership. The other guy will have to relocate, up his game, or let him self be bought out as an employee of the winning party.

If you play video games, take a look at what would have happened to next generation consoles if Xbox One would stay the same as it was first announced. Nintendo Wii-U as great as it may be, doesn't seem to add up to Playstation or Xbox so let's leave it out of the equation. Nintendo always does its own thing would directly competing with Sony and Microsoft.

Anyways. So! When Xbox One was first announced, they basically wanted to put a stop to used game sales by selling game discs that only have a one time use by INSTALLING the game onto the console, and then that's it. You can't lend your games to your friends anymore, you can't sell it back to the store so they can sell it as used. Since game companies only make money off sales on the original purches, and not from used game sales, Microsoft was actually gonna screw over the game STORES that sold used games to also stay in business. You can see how counter intuitive that would be. Putting game stores out of business would mean new games might not get a chance to see the light of day because their supplies won't be able to supply them.

With that tomfoolery set, Playstation 3 would win by default because games would stay the same. Discs you can pop in and play, sell to stores when you're done with them if you wanted, or to lend to friends who can easily play them no problem. No stinginess on the installation crap, but anyways. Could you imagine what would happen to the quality of PS3? I know game developers would still compete with each other and that would make the games have quality insurance, but what of the console of PS3 itself? It would have monopoly over the video game market and they would tend to try less and less to improve because they have no one else to compete with. Sure they want to keep their customers satisfied but I doubt they would be trying hard to implement any new features like they would if Microsoft was still a valid opponent.

You have to take in account that in our current system with the many different markets set in place, competitors already use the same resources to outdo each other.

BorisM · November 10, 2013

Another "desert island" scenario that I hope will further illustrate my point.Imagine a ship sinks in the ocean. There are two lifeboats on the ship, both capable of carrying five people. Five passengers get on one. Five on the other. The lifeboats drift around at sea for a while & eventually get seperated. By mere luck one lifeboat washes ashore on a small island. Fortunately there is enough resourses on the island for all of them to sustain themselves(actually more than enough). Each of the five castaways finds their own little section of the island & calls it his own. Maybe he builds a hut, clears a bit of land, or harvests some of the existing coconut trees. basically he "homesteads" his own section of the island. Seems fair enough. Everything seems to work fine.Several days later, the second lifeboat washes up on the same island. Of course, after being lost at sea for several days the five passengers on the second boat are tired, hungry & in desperate need of shelter. One of the newcomers(let's call him Pete) runs up to the nearest coconut tree and attempts to pick a few coconuts to eat. "Hold it just one minute" comes a voice. "I own this land, including that tree & it's fruit". You see that's the part of the island that one of the guys on the first boat(let's call him Bob) "homesteaded".Of course, Bob's not an unreasonable man. he can see that Pete's hungry & has no desire to see his fellow man starve. "I'll tell you what" Bob says. "Pick me 10 of them there coconuts from that there tree of mine & I'll let you keep 5 for yourself!" Pete's starving & realises he has no leverage here(after all, all of the other sections of the island are owned by someone else too), so he reluctantly agrees. Pete get's himself a belly full and feels much better. Several hours go by & Pete realizes that he's gonna need a place to bed down for the night. He proceeds to gather some sticks & branches in order to put together some kind of structure to sleep in. "Wait" says Bob. "Those sticks & branches are mine. They're on my land!" "Oh shit! what now?!" thinks Pete. Of course, Bob being a reasonable man has no desire to see poor Pete sleep out in the cold. Bob says "I tell you what, Pete. I got this little bitty hut I built here a few days ago & I'd really like to have a bigger one. You build me an addition onto this here hut & I'll let you have enough sticks & what-not to build your own self a hut". Once again Pete reluctantly agrees. After all this is Bob's property & Pete doesn't want to be a trouble-maker.Several days go buy & pretty much any time Pete gets hungry he has to give a share of everything he gathers to Bob. If he wants to build a bigger hut, or a tool, or anything else for that matter, he first has to do some kind of labor for Bob in exchange for the resources he needs. After a while he realizes Bob really doesn't do much of anything on his land. He mostly just lies around in the sun drinkin' coconut juice & ordering Pete around.Pete is really starting to feel like he's being taken advantage of and appeals to Bob's better nature. "Bob" says Pete. "I really don't think this arrangement we have is fair. I'm doing all the work around here while you lay around in the sun all day." "Well," says Bob. "This is my property, surely you don't expect me to allow you to stay here for free? There's no free lunch, ya know... I'm not telling you what to do. You're free to see if one of the other land owners on this island will cut you a better deal." Bob approaches some of the other landowners, but soon sees that they all have someone working for them as well(after all there were 5 newcomers on the second boat that all needed jobs in order to povide fo themselves too). None of the other landowners need any more help, and none give him a better offer.Pete goes crawling back to working for Bob, but deep down feels something's just not right. He once again attempts to appeal to Bob''s better nature. "Ya know Bob I've looked around and ther just doesn't seem to be any oppourtunity around here for me to work & keep the full value of my labor. Surely you can see that this isn't fair" says Pete. Bob replies "Life isn't easy, maybe you just need to work a little harder, if you want more in life. After all you are a free man. There's no cage around this island. You're more than welcome to leave the island and try and find another place to live, if you don't like it here. Of course there's lots of sharks and other nasty critters out there and who knows how far it is to the next island."Questions:Is Pete really free?Who is re-distributing the fruit of someone else's labor?Doesn't this scenario more closely resemble a master/slave relationship than true freedom?

They could compete to see who can collect the most. It's only an abstraction to say one owns them all without physically having them i their possession.

Ok, but if all the trees on the island have alreedy been "homesteaded" any newcomer would not have the oppourtunity to compete. If all have equal opportunity to compete, there's more competition. Isn't competition good in a free market?Your arguments make sense only if natural resources are unlimited. They're not. At least not here on earth. Once all of the resources are "owned" or monopolized, there are no more oppourtunities to homestead, thus REDUCING possible competitors. The more concentrated land/resource ownership becomes. The less competition there is to use those resources efficiently.

wdiaz03 · November 11, 2013

Questions:Is Pete really free?

Yes, He can leave whenever he wants.

Questions:Who is re-distributing the fruit of someone else's labor?

What? There's only a collection of a fee.

Questions:Doesn't this scenario more closely resemble a master/slave relationship than true freedom?

No, Peter can seat all day as well and not get wiped, he can work for someone else and force will not be used to bring him back to his owner.

Again you are assuming that an economy is frozen, And that the Islanders have everything they want. Since they don't, there Lots of needs, and those needs can be met by the 5 newcomers whos labor will be in high demand.. One of them can fish, the other can weave leaves into clothes, etc. What if one of the newcomers is a doctor, and a landowner gets sick? How many coconuts is he willing to trade for a cure? or maybe a chunk of land?

They can specialize, they can provide services that the landowners don't have the time or skills to provide themselves. Eventually the newcomers can accumulate enough wealth to buy a chunk of land for themselves.

We can agree to disagree on this issue, and that's fine, but you can't say you believe in equality of rights, if you believe some have a right to free land(via the homesteading process) and others don't, simply because they didn't get there in time.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

BorisM · November 11, 2013

wdiaz03, I'll agree to disagree. I'm going leave you all(for now) with what I believe to be 8 undisputable facts that everyone should consider when forming an opinion on this issue. Forgive me if I repeat many of my earlier points. This is meant to be more of a re-cap, than a new argument.

1) Land and natural resources such as air, water, etc...are necessary for human life(one would not live long floating in outer space).

2) The earth is finite. All earthly resources are fixed in supply.

3) Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership.

4) Labor on it's own can produce nothing. It requires resources to work with before it can produce anything of value.

5) No matter how far back you trace the buying and selling of a given piece of land, you can never trace it back to the person that produced it.

6) When one trades for(or purchases) a given piece of land or natural resource, he is not trading for the product of someones labor, he is only purchasing the priviledge of "monopolizing" that particular piece of land/resource.

7) Monopoly reduces competition. The more concentrated the ownership of land/natural resources, the less competition there is, to use them more efficiently.

8) If some have the right of free access to land/nature via the homesteading process, and others do not, this implies that some have more rights than others simply based upon when they were born, or when they arrived upon a particular piece of land/resource.

wdiaz03 · November 12, 2013

wdiaz03, I'll agree to disagree. I'm going leave you all(for now) with what I believe to be 8 undisputable facts that everyone should consider when forming an opinion on this issue. Forgive me if I repeat many of my earlier points. This is meant to be more of a re-cap, than a new argument.

Indisputable? Lets try to be a little more humble. Have you considered that maybe just maybe the argument you are putting forward may have already been considered by experts in the field? Have you read any of Rothbard books?

1) Land and natural resources such as air, water, etc...are necessary for human life(one would not live long floating in outer space).2) The earth is finite. All earthly resources are fixed in supply.3) Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership.4) Labor on it's own can produce nothing. It requires resources to work with before it can produce anything of value.5) No matter how far back you trace the buying and selling of a given piece of land, you can never trace it back to the person that produced it.6) When one trades for(or purchases) a given piece of land or natural resource, he is not trading for the product of someones labor, he is only purchasing the priviledge of "monopolizing" that particular piece of land/resource.7) Monopoly reduces competition. The more concentrated the ownership of land/natural resources, the less competition there is, to use them more efficiently.8) If some have the right of free access to land/nature via the homesteading process, and others do not, this implies that some have more rights than others simply based upon when they were born, or when they arrived upon a particular piece of land/resource.

I'm not going to bother with this stuff, I'm sorry but its hard to take you seriously when up to this point you just point to the obvious and and use that to make flawed arguments like the ones above. Would love to hear your ultimate solution to this "fatal flaw of free market"

BorisM · November 12, 2013

Indisputable? Lets try to be a little more humble. Have you considered that maybe just maybe the argument you are putting forward may have already been considered by experts in the field? Have you read any of Rothbard books? I'm not going to bother with this stuff, I'm sorry but its hard to take you seriously when up to this point you just point to the obvious and and use that to make flawed arguments like the ones above. Would love to hear your ultimate solution to this "fatal flaw of free market"

I can see that I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't bother anymore either. Just trust the "experts". It's much easier than thinking for yourself.

wdiaz03 · November 12, 2013

I can see that I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't bother anymore either. Just trust the "experts". It's much easier than thinking for yourself

You can't expect to change someone's mind with those arguments, I find it that is easier to read the experts first before trying to reinvent the wheel. Its going to save you time and effort because your arguments are plain silly, This is not an attack at you, but there's nothing impressive in them at all, you repeat yourself and avoid the main objections. Do you expect to be taken seriously? It would be the equivalent of me showing up at a physics forum and starting my first post with "fatal flaw with the theory of relativity" then posting some stuff that does not prove anything at all.

For example:

some of your indisputable points:

#3 - Already dealt with in many books

#4 - Wrong. Basic economics here. I can give back massages, dance, therapy etc

#7 - Wrong. On a free market natural monopolies must be extremely efficient to remain monopolies.

Hence my suggestion to be a little more humble in your approach, Ask questions, see if you are the one that is not seeing a key point. Have you considered that you could be wrong on this issue?

I'll be happy to change my mind if you present good arguments. BTW I'll be happy to hear your solution to the "fatal flaw"

BorisM · November 12, 2013

some of your indisputable points: #3 - Already dealt with in many books #4 - Wrong. Basic economics here. I can give back massages, dance, therapy etc #7 - Wrong. On a free market natural monopolies must be extremely efficient to remain monopolies.

#3 - Haven't read those books. Please explain.#4 - Can I give massages, dance, therapy, etc... without oxygen to breathe? Without food in my belly to provide the energy needed to perform such tasks? Can I dance, massage, etc... without a piece of ground to stand on while performing these activities?#7 - If a person has a monopoly over a given piece of land, he doesn't have to be efficient. He has eliminated competition on that particular piece of land by claiming he, and only he has a right to use it. If someone else has the ability to use that land more efficiently, but has no right to do so, what does it matter?

You BTW I'll be happy to hear your solution to the "fatal flaw"

Never once claimed to have the solution.

Have you considered that you could be wrong on this issue?

Don't mean to come off as a "know it all". I just said I "believe" these to be undisputable facts. If you can prove I'm wrong, then do so. I'm always willing to listen to a contrary opinion.

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 12, 2013

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.

Cars and boats are different because they're created. They're already property and they're not analogous to land. The land in question already just exists. Again you're putting forward an example of someone behaving like a state and calling it a fatal flaw in anarchy. That's why I asked for an example and you're not providing one. You ask if some person has a moral right to own the thousand acres of wilderness but you provide no information other than the fact that he's maybe fenced it off. I have no idea why or what he's planning or what's the point or why he invested in fencing or anything really.

Relevant details are required to properly answer questions about ownership of natural resources. You are not providing the relevant details. Therefore I cannot properly answer the question. This is why I usually ask people who put forward this argument to provide a scenario within an anarchist society. That way you can work through the reasons why this is not a flaw at all.

The homesteading principle (one has the moral right to homestead, right?) makes sense. Even if there was a finite supply of land and for some reason no one could "homestead" then so what? In the real world it's not like people want to homestead much anyway. They prefer to have a nice house already built on land someone else homesteaded. In a free society the more area of the Earth that's been homesteaded the better off people will be. It's just a statist mindset that thinks of land and resources as things that are carved up like a cake.

dfv888 · November 12, 2013

I'm new to this forum and I just discovered Stefan Molyneux and the theory of anarchism a couple days ago. After reading several of his ebooks and listening to some podcasts I am left with one important question, which is "How are property rights resolved?" I was going to jump on Skype to ask that question of Stefan but then I found this thread and I figured I'd see if anybody else might already have that answer.

It seems to me that Boris is absolutely right. Why should any person, as a sovereign equal, be forced to subscribe to some concept of a "homesteading principle", and how do you propose to force that person to accept the legitimacy of DRO's without the threat of physical force?

Regardless of how that person became a functional adult (take yourself or myself, for example, already functional before an anarchistic society were to emerge), let's assume that that person is now fully capable of supporting themselves by drinking rain water, picking berries, fishing streams, chewing on willow bark, and harvesting wood to build a shelter.

What would prevent that person from walking across "your" land without your permission, defecating in your rose bushes, having sexual intercourse outside your daughter's bedroom window, and digging up your ground to harvest all the truffles?

Of course you will ask them to stop, ask them to leave your property, and they will politely explain that you have no more legitimate claim to the spoils of nature than they do, and because they provided the labor to dig up the truffles they have earned the right to eat them, and by chopping down your favorite oak tree they have provided the labor to create firewood and shelter for themselves, and by planting another acorn they have caused no harm to nature.

You explain to the "squatter" that you have bought and paid for the privilege to use that land exclusively, and they will say "Well you made no contract with me so I don't recognize the validity of your claim."

You warn them that you will report them to your DRO if they do not comply, they say go ahead, it makes no difference.

The DRO sends out representatives to do their best to cajole the squatter into leaving, using every non-violent weapon in its inventory, even offering them cash to move on, and still the squatter refuses to leave because they like the incredible view (and they are really enjoying nettling the DRO).

The DRO explains to the squatter that they will be ostracized by society, shunned for going against the will of the people, their name on a permanent list of troublemakers who are not allowed into grocery stores or gas stations, and the squatter replies that they don't really care, everybody except their dog dislikes them anyway, and if they want groceries they'll just make up a new name.

The DRO replies that all people will then be required to present an authorized photo ID, registered in a database, to buy groceries and gasoline and enter into contracts, and the squatter asks "What kind of freedom is this anyway, where I have to be numbered and registered like a holocaust victim in order to eat?"

As you can see, Without the threat of physical violence the DRO would be completely toothless, barking up a storm but with no real power to force compliance. If a DRO can't effectively defend the property rights of its members then it lacks usefulness except as a simple arbitrator. And if you were to give the DRO the power to enact violence on your behalf in order to enforce your way of thinking then how would that be any better than giving a State that same power?

The one thing that everybody here seems to forget is that Mother Nature is the boss of all of us. Property rights are not granted by some "homesteading principle", they are granted by nature's law, which is that Might makes Right. Nearly every war in history has been fought with the goal of land or resource acquisition, with the winners taking all. One of the biggest reasons that States exist is to lay claim to land on behalf of their governing bodies (who happen to be the citizens themselves in a democracy) and to defend that land against those who would seek to claim it as their own.

All wealth comes from the bounty of the land in one form or another, whether that land is mined, cultivated, harvested, industrialized, commercialized, or just used as a resting spot by laborers or thinkers. Humans may be able to shape those resources to great effect, but access to the land and its resources is still totally necessary for each and every person in the world to be able to survive.

Access to the world's (by extension, the universe's) resources is our birthright as sovereign equals. We, all 6 billion of us, are the current "owners" of this planet we call Earth, each of us equal in our right to survival. If you were to try to deny somebody access to food or water then you should be well prepared to demonstrate your Might, for they most surely will be demonstrating theirs.

wdiaz03 · November 12, 2013

Never once claimed to have the solution.

Great, So your approach is to use the "wishful thinking" argument?

How would is seem if I showed up at a medical forum and claimed there was a "fatal flaw" with current cancer treatments methods, that with current methods certain people died etc.

When asked, I say "Some people get better treatment than others based on location and wealth"..."Well not all cancer cells are killed"...or "The basic DNA structure that produce cancer cells is never modified, increasing the likelihood of cancer reoccurring".

- "I see", they would reply, "how would you approach it then?"

- "Well, I don't know. but a problem exits...you see."

- "Have you even looked at books in the matter?"

- "Nah. but please explain them to me.."

At these point they would back away from me slowly....which is what I'm going to do.

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 12, 2013

I'm new to this forum and I just discovered Stefan Molyneux and the theory of anarchism a couple days ago. After reading several of his ebooks and listening to some podcasts I am left with one important question, which is "How are property rights resolved?" I was going to jump on Skype to ask that question of Stefan but then I found this thread and I figured I'd see if anybody else might already have that answer.

It seems to me that Boris is absolutely right. Why should any person, as a sovereign equal, be forced to subscribe to some concept of a "homesteading principle", and how do you propose to force that person to accept the legitimacy of DRO's without the threat of physical force?

Regardless of how that person became a functional adult (take yourself or myself, for example, already functional before an anarchistic society were to emerge), let's assume that that person is now fully capable of supporting themselves by drinking rain water, picking berries, fishing streams, chewing on willow bark, and harvesting wood to build a shelter.

What would prevent that person from walking across "your" land without your permission, defecating in your rose bushes, having sexual intercourse outside your daughter's bedroom window, and digging up your ground to harvest all the truffles?

Of course you will ask them to stop, ask them to leave your property, and they will politely explain that you have no more legitimate claim to the spoils of nature than they do, and because they provided the labor to dig up the truffles they have earned the right to eat them, and by chopping down your favorite oak tree they have provided the labor to create firewood and shelter for themselves, and by planting another acorn they have caused no harm to nature.

You explain to the "squatter" that you have bought and paid for the privilege to use that land exclusively, and they will say "Well you made no contract with me so I don't recognize the validity of your claim."

You warn them that you will report them to your DRO if they do not comply, they say go ahead, it makes no difference.

The DRO sends out representatives to do their best to cajole the squatter into leaving, using every non-violent weapon in its inventory, even offering them cash to move on, and still the squatter refuses to leave because they like the incredible view (and they are really enjoying nettling the DRO).

The DRO explains to the squatter that they will be ostracized by society, shunned for going against the will of the people, their name on a permanent list of troublemakers who are not allowed into grocery stores or gas stations, and the squatter replies that they don't really care, everybody except their dog dislikes them anyway, and if they want groceries they'll just make up a new name.

The DRO replies that all people will then be required to present an authorized photo ID, registered in a database, to buy groceries and gasoline and enter into contracts, and the squatter asks "What kind of freedom is this anyway, where I have to be numbered and registered like a holocaust victim in order to eat?"

As you can see, Without the threat of physical violence the DRO would be completely toothless, barking up a storm but with no real power to force compliance. If a DRO can't effectively defend the property rights of its members then it lacks usefulness except as a simple arbitrator. And if you were to give the DRO the power to enact violence on your behalf in order to enforce your way of thinking then how would that be any better than giving a State that same power?

The one thing that everybody here seems to forget is that Mother Nature is the boss of all of us. Property rights are not granted by some "homesteading principle", they are granted by nature's law, which is that Might makes Right. Nearly every war in history has been fought with the goal of land or resource acquisition, with the winners taking all. One of the biggest reasons that States exist is to lay claim to land on behalf of their governing bodies (who happen to be the citizens themselves in a democracy) and to defend that land against those who would seek to claim it as their own.

All wealth comes from the bounty of the land in one form or another, whether that land is mined, cultivated, harvested, industrialized, commercialized, or just used as a resting spot by laborers or thinkers. Humans may be able to shape those resources to great effect, but access to the land and its resources is still totally necessary for each and every person in the world to be able to survive.

Access to the world's (by extension, the universe's) resources is our birthright as sovereign equals. We, all 6 billion of us, are the current "owners" of this planet we call Earth, each of us equal in our right to survival. If you were to try to deny somebody access to food or water then you should be well prepared to demonstrate your Might, for they most surely will be demonstrating theirs.

It's not Stefan's theory. The DRO's can use force if someone is aggressing against another's person or property. I don't know what a "sovereign equal" is. The person destroying your property and having sex outside your daughter's room is subject to the same moral rules as you. The property is not the "spoils" of nature. Most property is created. The "squatter" will suffer the effects of his vandalism and harassment. He's obviously just being a cunt. The effort this squatter is making just to get some truffles far exceeds the rewards and as I said the DRO CAN use violence if the squatter has initiated violence. The squatter's pleas of persecution will have no credibility. Who cares if the guy complains that he feels it's like "the holocaust". It's not.

If you think "might makes right" then why are you bothering to use argument? You think it's right to rape someone if you have the might? You think you have property rights over vagina's if you're big enough?

Wealth comes from people who use the land and resources. Why are you bringing up access to the world's resources in this context? It's not like anarchists are arguing people should not have access. It's states who prevent access. You then talk about being prevented from having food and water. WTF are you talking about?

I suggest you go study the arguments for a few months and don't bother us with this kind of exhaustively refuted silliness.

BorisM · November 12, 2013

this is why I usually ask people who put forward this argument to provide a scenario within an anarchist society.

I wish there was an example in an anarchist society. Unfortunatly, I don't know of any. Do you?

In the real world it's not like people want to homestead much anyway.

How many people there is that want to homestead is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that if rights are "universal" which anarchists claim(& which, by the way, I agree with.), then you can't say that some have a right to homestead and others don't. If you do, you contradict yourself.

- "Have you even looked at books in the matter?"- "Nah. but please explain them to me.." At these point they would back away from me slowly....which is what I'm going to do.

You stated "already dealt with in many books" as your argument against my statement that "Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership.".How am I suppost to respond? You don't mention any books by name, You don't quote any books. This is the equivilent of you stating: "We all need oxygen to breath" & me saying "no we don't. People already wrote books bout it". It disproves nothing.

dfv888 · November 12, 2013

It's not Stefan's theory. The DRO's can use force if someone is aggressing against another's person or property. I don't know what a "sovereign equal" is. The person destroying your property and having sex outside your daughter's room is subject to the same moral rules as you. The property is not the "spoils" of nature. Most property is created. The "squatter" will suffer the effects of his vandalism and harassment. He's obviously just being a cunt. The effort this squatter is making just to get some truffles far exceeds the rewards and as I said the DRO CAN use violence if the squatter has initiated violence. The squatter's pleas of persecution will have no credibility. Who cares if the guy complains that he feels it's like "the holocaust". It's not.

If you think "might makes right" then why are you bothering to use argument? You think it's right to rape someone if you have the might? You think you have property rights over vagina's if you're big enough?

Wealth comes from people who use the land and resources. Why are you bringing up access to the world's resources in this context? It's not like anarchists are arguing people should not have access. It's states who prevent access. You then talk about being prevented from having food and water. WTF are you talking about?

I suggest you go study the arguments for a few months and don't bother us with this kind of exhaustively refuted silliness.

1. If somebody doesn't subscribe to your idea of a "homesteading principle" then do you (or your DRO) have the right to use physical violence against that person to enforce your belief system? The "homesteading principle" you speak of would have been just as destructive to the nomadic Native American culture that existed here as was, well, homesteading.

2. What "moral rules" were broken by the person in the example I gave? Walking across the grass, digging up food that was unplanted by the hand of man, sexual reproduction between consenting adults, eliminating bodily waste, and sustainable harvesting of a tree - which of those is immoral? They have not destroyed any of the "property" that you have created, so why would you or your DRO have the right to initiate violence against them?

3. If a DRO can use violence against somebody for walking on grass and heeding the call of nature then what makes them a morally superior choice to a State?

4. I think that "Might makes Right" is the rule of Nature, like it or leave it, and that we as a human society are trying to rise above that, and to that end (at least for as long as we are resource-dependent creatures of nature) we need "States" to adjudicate property rights and to resolve differences between Sovereign Equals. If you want to call your flavor of state a DRO then so be it, just don't think that it's anything different or morally superior.

5. Wealth comes from people who use the land and resources - well said. You have to have land in order to use it, and I guarantee that if you (collectively) take all the best pieces of land in this world as your own under some "Homesteading Principle" and tell all the people who are born into this world after you that they must subjugate themselves to the land owners or find a beautiful plot in Antarctica, then you had best be prepared to defend yourself from physical aggression because the people who are left out of that system will feel mightily oppressed. That would be an even worse state of affairs than what we have now with our inheritance system - once somebody owns land in your system they would never be motivated to sell it because to do so would be selling their very independence.

6. What if, when this "great homesteading land grab" occurs, a woman is going through pregnancy and can't physically move to stake a claim for herself or her unborn child . Is she then consigned to a life of servitude, working for somebody else and having to give over a percentage of her wages to some land owner?

7. Sovereign Equality (a term I coined, sorry for the confusion) means that we are all equally free to pursue our own happiness as long as we don’t infringe upon that same right of others.

“Sovereign” means that each and every one of us, every man, woman and child, is completely free-willed to make choices that affect ourselves and our immediate environment. Every one of us is master of our own ship, sovereign of our own destiny. This is an immutable fact of existence, not some 'right' granted by States. States might be able to limit the choices available to a person or motivate them to make a certain choice but they can never actually force an individual to make a particular choice. Though it might cost them their lives, people always have options.

The term "Equality" in this case is not meant to describe a person's status in life - there will always be rich and poor, healthy and sick, happy and sad. Equality in this case means equal protection by society of each person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This includes equal access to the resources of the world and to the mechanisms of trade.

Taken together, the term "Sovereign Equality" is an instruction to future governments on how to govern their citizens. It means that we as sovereign equals, by choosing citizenship, have chosen to grant our government the right to govern us, not the other way around. Government doesn't grant us rights, we grant it rights. We Sovereign Equals should then strictly limit government's role to defending life and liberty and protecting each person’s (not just citizens) right to pursue their own happiness. Each of those purposes are best served by adhering to the principle that all people are equally free to seek their own happiness in whatever manner they choose as long as they don't infringe upon that same right of others.

If you think about it, all crimes, whether murder, theft, fraud, vandalism, arson, or any of the others that you can think of, are actually at their core an infringement upon somebody else’s right to live the life of their own choosing, aka an infringement upon their Sovereign Equality. Quite simply, Sovereign Equality is the only rule that people would have to follow for a society to be just.

Unfortunately, even in a just society there are differences of opinion between people. Some entity with the ability to enforce decisions, whether you want to call it a State or a DRO, is necessary to arbitrate those differences of opinion and keep people from killing each other.

8. One of the most important roles of the State (or the DRO in your scenario) is to protect our lives, and since we all need food, water, and shelter then it is the State's role to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources of the world in order to provide for themselves. In times gone by, people would hunt for their own food and build their own shelters. Today people do not have that option - all land is owned, all wildlife is managed, and all livestock is spoken for. The only way for most people to feed themselves these days is either to work at a job, beg, or steal food from someone else. For certain people (disabled, elderly, uncharismatic) finding a job through the normal mechanisms can be difficult. Rather than force people into a terrible equation – beggar, thief, or die - society should provide a mechanism for every person to be able to get a job and go to work.

Our entire ability to survive as a species is based upon our ability to use our labor and ingenuity to manipulate the resources of the Earth to create food and shelter for ourselves and our families. Since all land is controlled by the States of the world, it is the responsibility of States to ensure that the basic survival needs for all of humanity are provided for out of those land resources before any resources are extracted for profit. If you can imagine that our entire economy is one big pie from which everybody must eat, then you will understand that everybody’s meals must come out before we can have a surplus with which to enrich ourselves.

It is people’s individual responsibility, not government’s, to shape those resources into something useful. That is why people must work to support themselves.

BorisM · November 12, 2013

- "I see", they would reply, "how would you approach it then?"- "Well, I don't know. but a problem exits...you see."

You are suggesting that because I don't have a solution, that a problem can't exist? Isn't the first step in solving a problem identifying the problem? How can one EVER expect to solve a problem, if he doesn't know what the problem is.

3. If a DRO can use violence against somebody for walking on grass and heeding the call of nature then what makes them a morally superior choice to a State?

What makes a DRO morally superior to a state is that a DRO would have to satisfy it's customers, while a state is a monopoly. If you don't like the way your DRO is handling matters, you can simply fire it & do business with a different DRO. You can't fire a "state". A state does whatever it wants claiming that it has "the right to rule". If you don't like what the state does, tough shit!

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 12, 2013

I wish there was an example in an anarchist society. Unfortunatly, I don't know of any. Do you? How many people there is that want to homestead is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that if rights are "universal" which anarchists claim(& which, by the way, I agree with.), then you can't say that some have a right to homestead and others don't. If you do, you contradict yourself. The previous poster(wdiaz03) stated "already dealt with in many books" as his argument against my statement that "Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership.".How am I suppost to respond? He doesn't mention any books by name, he doesn't quote any books. This is the equivilent of you stating: "We all need oxygen to breath" & me saying "no we don't. People already wrote books bout it". It disproves nothing.

It doesn't matter if there's been an anarchist society. There doesn't need to to have in order for you to give me a scenario. You posit an anarchist society (without rulers) and then put forward a scenario were this thing becomes a problem. For example you posit something like a guy comes up to your farm and claims "your ownership of this land cannot be justified because you did not create the land". If you do something like that and play it out logically I can show how it's not a problem and how the person's claim is not valid.

No one is saying some have a right to homestead and others don't. If the bizarre situation comes up were there's literally no place left to homestead then that's just a matter of scarcity.

What makes a DRO morally superior to a state is that a DRO would have to satisfy it's customers, while a state is a monopoly. If you don't like the way your DRO is handling matters, you can simply fire it & do business with a different DRO. You can't fire a "state". A state does whatever it wants claiming that it has "the right to rule". If you don't like what the state does, tough shit!

What makes a DRO moral is that it is not based on the initiation of force. The state IS.

BorisM · November 12, 2013

You posit an anarchist society (without rulers) and then put forward a scenario were this thing becomes a problem. For example you posit something like a guy comes up to your farm and claims "your ownership of this land cannot be justified because you did not create the land". If you do something like that and play it out logically I can show how it's not a problem and how the person's claim is not valid.

Please do.

What makes a DRO moral is that it is not based on the initiation of force. The state IS.

Very well put!

dfv888 · November 12, 2013

What makes a DRO morally superior to a state is that a DRO would have to satisfy it's customers, while a state is a monopoly. If you don't like the way your DRO is handling matters, you can simply fire it & do business with a different DRO. You can't fire a "state". A state does whatever it wants claiming that it has "the right to rule". If you don't like what the state does, tough shit!

From a moral perspective, how does "satisfying the DRO's customers" make any difference to the person who chooses not to be a "customer" of a DRO? If the DRO were to inflict violence upon that non-customer in order to enforce their will, claiming that it has a moral right to do so because their customers gave them permission based upon some "homesteading principle" which not everybody in the world agrees with (myself included), then how is it any different from a State doing the same thing? Oppression by any other name is still oppression.

BorisM · November 12, 2013

From a moral perspective, how does "satisfying the DRO's customers" make any difference to the person who chooses not to be a "customer" of a DRO? If the DRO were to inflict violence upon that non-customer in order to enforce their will, claiming that it has a moral right to do so because their customers gave them permission based upon some "homesteading principle" which not everybody in the world agrees with (myself included), then how is it any different from a State doing the same thing? Oppression by any other name is still oppression.

If a DRO chooses to inflict violence upon non-customers, it has to pay for that aggression by some means. It has to sell the idea to it's customers that it's a good idea to aggress against non-customers, because the costs of that aggression would have to be passed down to it's customers. The state simply "taxes" it's subjects to pay for it's violence. A DRO would also have to deal with the fact that non-customers might also be a part of a competing DRO that would defend their interests. Warring DRO's is not a cost-effective way to resolve disputes. It's much more cost-effect to negotiate a peaceful solution with a competing DRO than to constantly be in violent conflict with them.If a DRO that represented you was constantly raising rates to fund violence against non-customers, how long would you continue to be it's customer, especially if their was the option of joining a DRO who's costs were less and didn't use violence to resolve disputes? In a free market the best, most cost-effective methods will rise to the top. With monopoly(which is what the state is), there is no competition & you're just stuck with what you're stuck with.

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 12, 2013

Please do.

Okay so I'll play the part of the land-owner and you play the land-ownership skeptic. So I homesteaded a number of acres to farm and have been growing crops for a few years in order to sell locally. I claim because I homesteaded the land and am using it productively I have ownership of the land. As such I have exclusive right to use the land and control access to it. I have invested my time and labor into the land to create the property of the produce and anyone else claiming this land would be initiating force upon me by stealing my time and labor (retroactively enslaving me).

Your response?

BorisM · November 12, 2013

Okay so I'll play the part of the land-owner and you play the land-ownership skeptic. So I homesteaded a number of acres to farm and have been growing crops for a few years in order to sell locally. I claim because I homesteaded the land and am using it productively I have ownership of the land. As such I have exclusive right to use the land and control access to it. I have invested my time and labor into the land to create the property of the produce and anyone else claiming this land would be initiating force upon me by stealing my time and labor (retroactively enslaving me). Your response?

Great! A very valid point. Your time and labor are yours. Absolutely! Now being that we are both free & equal human beings, please point me to the nearest plot of free land that I might apply my labor to, and grow my own crops, just as you did.

PatrickC · November 12, 2013

Someone call the air/sea rescue... Clearly too many lifeboats scenarios for one person to deal with.

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 12, 2013

Great! A very valid point. Your time and labor are yours. Absolutely! Now being that we are both free & equal human beings, please point me to the nearest plot of land that I might apply my labor to, and grow my own crops, just as you did.

You should be able to find one yourself.

BorisM · November 12, 2013

You should be able to find one yourself.

You're right. I thought so too, but I've been looking all over this area for days and although I've found quite a bit of vacant, unused land, everytime I attempt to start to til the soil, some one comes up to me with a reciept that shows they purchased the land. It appears that all that unused land has been purchased by someone else. Seems a shame that all that good land is going to waste, but they did have a reciept.

Someone call the air/sea rescue... Clearly too many lifeboats scenarios for one person to deal with.

LOL!!!, Yeah, but if it proves a point....

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 13, 2013

You're right. I thought so too, but I've been looking all over this area for days and although I've found quite a bit of vacant, unused land, everytime I attempt to start to til the soil, some one comes up to me with a reciept that shows they purchased the land. It appears that all that unused land has been purchased by someone else. Seems a shame that all that good land is going to waste, but they did have a reciept.

I think those people are having you on good sir. There's no state and it seems odd that someone would BUY land and let it go to waste, never mind buy ALL the land and let it go to waste. I've never heard of such a thing. People just waving receipts? Sounds far-fetched to me. I suggest you be more skeptical. All the other folk around here seem to have no problem finding land. I found this land a few years ago no problem and turned it into property.

If you really can't find any land, anywhere at any time ever you can always work at something else and buy my produce. It's basically like owning a bit of my land. After all the only reason it has value is because everyone else will pay to own a piece of what I produce.

BorisM · November 13, 2013

I think those people are having you on good sir. There's no state and it seems odd that someone would BUY land and let it go to waste, never mind buy ALL the land and let it go to waste. I've never heard of such a thing. People just waving receipts? Sounds far-fetched to me. I suggest you be more skeptical. All the other folk around here seem to have no problem finding land. I found this land a few years ago no problem and turned it into property.If you really can't find any land, anywhere at any time ever you can always work at something else and buy my produce. It's basically like owning a bit of my land. After all the only reason it has value is because everyone else will pay to own a piece of what I produce.

Are you suggesting that those reciepts are not valid? But, what if they really did pay for all that land?

BorisM · November 13, 2013

There's no state and it seems odd that someone would BUY land and let it go to waste, never mind buy ALL the land and let it go to waste.

It did seem funny to me at first that someone would buy all that land and let it go to waste. Then one of the land owners explained it to me. You see he and a few of his buddies figured out a way to aquire wealth without having to work for it. Without having to produce anything at all! You see everyone needs at least some land in order to survive, and as population increases, or more people move into a certain area(such as myself), demand for productive land will always increase. See, what you do to get money for nothing is try and aquire as much of the land in a given area as possible. If you can aquire enough land that there's none left to homestead, you're well on your way to becoming rich with little or no effort. As demand increases your land's value will also increase. However you'd probably be foolish to sell it even at a profit. The best way to get rich without producing anything is to get others to use the land productively, take a percentage of what the user produces and call it rent!As a matter of fact one of the land-owners I met gave me that option. I could work his land so long as I gave him 50% of everything I produced. Doesn't seem like a very good deal, but I may have to take him up on it. There appears to be no more land around here for me to homestead and I'm getting desperate! I sure don't like the idea of giving a percentage of everything I produce to someone, just so they'll allow me to make a living. It kinda reminds me of something else I experienced back before the state was dissolved. What did they call that?....Taxation?...Yeah that's it Taxation! Actually the more I think about it, it's exactly like taxation. The landlord requires I give him a percentage of the wealth I create in order to live & work on his land! If I don't pay up, I'm in trouble. I see now. Back in the days of the state they had different terminology for it, but it was exactly the same thing! Instead of a landlord, we had politicians. Instead of calling it his land, the politician called it his jurisdiction. Instead of collecting rent, the politicians collected taxes. Either way I do the work & somebody else collects a percentage of the fruit of my labor!Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Another thing that seems odd. If we are both free and equal human beings, how come you get to keep everything you produce & I have to pay a tax of 50% to my landlord?

norpan · November 13, 2013

Owning a lot of land is not cheap in a free society. There is no such thing as legal ownership, where you just can call the police and have them remove squatters. You actually have to do it yourself, or pay somebody to do it for you. Where will you get the resources to pay them?Since the land itself is of no value unless it is used, the person who can make the land the most profitable is also able to bid the highest for the land. That person will also then have the most resources to pay for the protection of the land.Another thing to keep in mind is that, while there is objective ethics, there is no enforcer of it. Each person is responsible for their own ethics, and a land owner such as the one you describe will not be popular in society.There will also be competition. The fact that you have to provide security yourself effectively limits the amount of land you can own without making it productive. Since their land is worthless without anybody working it, they will compete for your labour and the one that bids the highest will get it.If there is much more people than land to work by hand, then there is a real problem, this is the problem of scarcity. But the free market has already solved that problem, by making farming so efficient that it can sustain a thousandfold more people than when the land was worked by hand. This caused the freeing up of a lot of labour, and is known as "the industrial revolution".I think you are chasing a ghost here. You are not free of the statist thinking that there is a "legal" owner of land and he has the right to protection of it from society. No such right exists.

I make no claim that I know how a free society will solve these problems, I am certain that the combined talents of billions of people far exceed my own. But I don't see any way in which a person can own a lot of land without making productive use of it. It will simply not be accepted.

ProfessionalTeabagger · November 13, 2013

Are you suggesting that those reciepts are not valid? But, what if they really did pay for all that land?

Well it's your job to find out in what way they're valid. Someone had to homestead all the land so if these people somehow paid for it just to let it go to waste then that seems like a crappy investment. I think you'd better go check.

It did seem funny to me at first that someone would buy all that land and let it go to waste. Then one of the land owners explained it to me. You see he and a few of his buddies figured out a way to aquire wealth without having to work for it. Without having to produce anything at all! You see everyone needs at least some land in order to survive, and as population increases, or more people move into a certain area(such as myself), demand for productive land will always increase. See, what you do to get money for nothing is try and aquire as much of the land in a given area as possible. If you can aquire enough land that there's none left to homestead, you're well on your way to becoming rich with little or no effort. As demand increases your land's value will also increase. However you'd probably be foolish to sell it even at a profit. The best way to get rich without producing anything is to get others to use the land productively, take a percentage of what the user produces and call it rent!As a matter of fact one of the land-owners I met gave me that option. I could work his land so long as I gave him 50% of everything I produced. Doesn't seem like a very good deal, but I may have to take him up on it. There appears to be no more land around here for me to homestead and I'm getting desperate! I sure don't like the idea of giving a percentage of everything I produce to someone, just so they'll allow me to make a living. It kinda reminds me of something else I experienced back before the state was dissolved. What did they call that?....Taxation?...Yeah that's it Taxation! Actually the more I think about it, it's exactly like taxation. The landlord requires I give him a percentage of the wealth I create in order to live & work on his land! If I don't pay up, I'm in trouble. I see now. Back in the days of the state they had different terminology for it, but it was exactly the same thing! Instead of a landlord, we had politicians. Instead of calling it his land, the politician called it his jurisdiction. Instead of collecting rent, the politicians collected taxes. Either way I do the work & somebody else collects a percentage of the fruit of my labor!Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Another thing that seems odd. If we are both free and equal human beings, how come you get to keep everything you produce & I have to pay a tax of 50% to my landlord?

That's strange. The land isn't worth anything until you do something with it. Maybe they ARE trying to behave like the old state. I'm not sure all the rest of what you're saying is true. It sounds like the old paranoia and resentment statists used to project onto concepts of a free society. I remember arguing with people who would concoct the most ridiculous scenarios were there was no land and somehow people were still behaving like a state without any negative consequences for themselves. Oh well, if you're really THAT keen to farm then I'd go start farming the land of one of those jokers. Sounds to me like they've abandoned the land and so given up any rights to it.

There appears to be no more land around here for me to homestead and I'm getting desperate!

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you should consider getting a job and saving up some money in order to buy the equipment you'll need to farm land. If you are desperate then you have little or no money and will not be able to farm the land anyway.

PatrickC · November 13, 2013

This may have already been said, so forgive me if that is the case. But it should be noted that land can only be left doing nothing and still be owned because of the enormous restrictions the state places on what an individual can do with his land. This drives up the price over time, as the landowner lobbies local govt to lift those restrictions, making a huge profit eventually.

NathanCJohnson · November 19, 2013

A few months ago I had a chance to speak with Stefan on this topic? We start talking about the issue 8:50 minutes in. I'd love to get other's thought's on our chat.http://youtu.be/te7rJYk66Vs

Also talked about it on the boards here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36198-is-homesteading-upb/

Since the land itself is of no value unless it is used, the person who can make the land the most profitable is also able to bid the highest for the land. That person will also then have the most resources to pay for the protection of the land.

i'm sorry is the land up for bid? If someone owns the land they can hirer the person who makes it most productive.

Sign In

A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Important Information