A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

[BorisM]

 

when volcanos erupt and form islands, is this process to be called modification or creation?how is land created?

Not that it's relevant to the subject at hand, but I would say land has been modified. Molton lava beneath the earth's crust has been modified by energy. It has ben re-located form beneath the ground to outside the volcano. It has been transformed from lava to solid rock via the cooling process. No land has magically appeared out of nowhere. What does a volcano erupting have to do with property rights? Property rights derive from HUMAN action, not volcanic eruptions(lol)!There are ways of insuring that everyone's right to access land is upheld. You don't have have to divide it up every time a new person is born. That would obviously be impractical. I like the idea of collecting the rental value of land(as determined by the market) & dividing it amongst the individuals in a given region. That way anyone using a lessor or equal per-capita share would have his rent offset by his dividend. Those using more than a per-capita share would be justly compensating those whom they've displaced from the land. This remedies alot of other property related problems as well, which I will try and discuss at a later time. There may be better ideas. In a free society, I believe the market would eventually insure that the best ideas win in the long run. There may not be a "perfect" solution, but we can do much better than we have historicaly.Do we need a "government" to enforce this?...No, I think if/when the people understand that they do indeed have the (universal)right to homestead(create property), each as much as the next one. Then they have every right to voluntarily organize and co-operate to protect that right. No need for coersion.I have a few more rebuttals that I'd like to make, but it's late & I'm getting tired. I'll re-visit the subject in the near future. Best wishes.

[cab21]

Not that it's relevant to the subject at hand, but I would say land has been modified. Molton lava beneath the earth's crust has been modified by energy. It has ben re-located form beneath the ground to outside the volcano. It has been transformed from lava to solid rock via the cooling process. No land has magically appeared out of nowhere. What does a volcano erupting have to do with property rights? Property rights derive from HUMAN action, not volcanic eruptions(lol)!

 

A's human action on X geography , does not stop B from human action on Y geography.

 

im just not sure about this world where the whole world is claimed through human action.

there are over 7 billion people out there, and plenty of space not claimed through human action.

people are choosing to move to places where others have already had human action, rather than homestead.

 

There are ways of insuring that everyone's right to access land is upheld. You don't have have to divide it up every time a new person is born. That would obviously be impractical. I like the idea of collecting the rental value of land(as determined by the market) & dividing it amongst the individuals in a given region. That way anyone using a lessor or equal per-capita share would have his rent offset by his dividend. Those using more than a per-capita share would be justly compensating those whom they've displaced from the land. This remedies alot of other property related problems as well, which I will try and discuss at a later time. There may be better ideas. In a free society, I believe the market would eventually insure that the best ideas win in the long run. There may not be a "perfect" solution, but we can do much better than we have historicaly.

 

 

how are regions given?

at what time periods is the rent collected and how?

who is owning and who is renting?

how is market value of rent calculated?

is this charging rent to people that rent?

why do people displace each other from the land here?

 

as for what rent is, rent is a payment for a service, so why should someones payment received for  a service have to go to people that did not provide the service?

 

what is the immigration policy- do people get to migrate to land near goldmines and be entitled to the gold from the mines without any work to help the goldmine owner?

 

if one person raises the value of his land, and another lowers value in his land, does the person who raised the value of his land have to compensate the person who lowered the value of his land?

 

if people want dividents, they can share ownership,

with homesteading free market capitalism, people do not displace each other from land.

a person cannot be displaced from land the person was never placed on in the first place.

free market capitalism allows people to create property, it allows people to modify property as well

who is to say earth is the only place to create property, or that any ability is limited by geography?

[AdamC]

What the Ancapland citizen sees as a tax, the Geoland citizen sees as justice, and willingly pays it.

 

It is the polycentric legal order envisioned by all anarchists that allows for people with conflicting visions of justice to live in relative peace.

 

Why Geoists and Market Anarchists Can and Should Be Friends by Gil Guillory and Fred Foldvary 

[BorisM]

 

A's human action on X geography , does not stop B from human action on Y geography. im just not sure about this world where the whole world is claimed through human action.there are over 7 billion people out there, and plenty of space not claimed through human action.people are choosing to move to places where others have already had human action, rather than homestead.

It's unlikely that the whole world would be claimed through human action, however how do you deal with the fact that some land is much more valuable than other land? Is it equality of rights when one claims land with valuable oil, or gold reserves, and another can only claim land in a desert, or arctic area? What about the buying & selling of land? Doesn't that have the potential to create concentrated land ownership by a minority, prohibiting others the opportunity to homestead? 

how are regions given?at what time periods is the rent collected and how?who is owning and who is renting?how is market value of rent calculated?is this charging rent to people that rent?why do people displace each other from the land here?

I don't know the most efficient way all the details might be sorted out any more than I can tell you "how the roads will be built". What's important is that people understand that homesteading is a universal right(most people don't understand this). How they work out the details on how to protect their rights is anyone's guess. A free market in possible solutions should eventually lead to the most efficient solution. 

as for what rent is, rent is a payment for a service, so why should someones payment received for  a service have to go to people that did not provide the service?

When I refer to "rent" I mean rent in the economic sense. meaning the return to land and resouses of productive activity. Henry George goes to great length in defining terms such as "rent", "land", "capital", "wages", "interest", etc...in the book "Progress and Poverty". It's a good book to read, if you're in to economics. Payment for a service is not "rent" in the economic sense. Payment for a service would be defined as "wages", and would be the sole property of whoever provided the service. As would "interest" (the return to capital). 

what is the immigration policy- do people get to migrate to land near goldmines and be entitled to the gold from the mines without any work to help the goldmine owner?

A piece of gold in your pocket is worth more than a piece of gold 100 feet under the ground, right? Any value created by the miners investment of labor, or capital would belong to the miner. The question I'm asking is: What gives one person any more, or less a right to the untouched gold under the ground?

[cab21]

 however how do you deal with the fact that some land is much more valuable than other land?

 

some land is more valuable than other land, as are some ideas and people more valuable than other ideas and people. equality of idea creation or people creation is not going to happen, equality of land can't happen. legal equality can happen. people can trade and give value and get resources. 

 

Is it equality of rights when one claims land with valuable oil, or gold reserves, and another can only claim land in a desert, or arctic area?

 

yes, politically, there is no rule of who gets what, just a rule about how it is gotten.

equality does not mean everyone gets the same right to the same resource by mere existance, or any other method from free trade. 

 

What about the buying & selling of land?

 

people do have the equal political right to buy and sell land.

Doesn't that have the potential to create concentrated land ownership by a minority, prohibiting others the opportunity to homestead?

 

sure, the potential, as well as potential for any free trades mankind can engage each other in as far as adding value to each other. the best creaters are a minority of people, and all can work up and be mobile.

nfl wise, it's a limited amount of players, those that earn it, and not everyone that wants to be in the nfl plays in the nfl.

 

I don't know the most efficient way all the details might be sorted out any more than I can tell you "how the roads will be built". What's important is that people understand that homesteading is a universal right(most people don't understand this). How they work out the details on how to protect their rights is anyone's guess. A free market in possible solutions ahould eventually lead to the most efficient solution.

 

i think people would have a system of capitalism, and be good with given to each other in order to receive from one another. leaders would still be followed, for being able to add more value than others who don't know what they are doing have a eaqual vote over those that do know what they are doing.

[BorisM]

 

some land is more valuable than other land, as are some ideas and people more valuable than other ideas and people. equality of idea creation or people creation is not going to happen, equality of land can't happen. legal equality can happen. people can trade and give value and get resources.

People are not equal because nature has given different people different physiology, skills, and talent. It is not the action of others that has made people unequal. Being born with only one arm is misfortunate. If I take a chainsaw & remove one of your arms, this is an act of aggression. Some ideas are more valuable than others, but the action of me having a big idea does not infringe upon your right to have a big idea. If I claim a disporportionate piece of land leaving you with little or none, my action has infringed on your equal right to claim the land. This would be an act of aggression, wheather intentional or not.

[PatrickC]

It does seem this conversation has gone full circle. You must realise Boris, that by the time our species consumes every acre of land, is about as far off as one can imagine. However, it's not impossible to consider that by that time (if it ever happns) most people will have had most of their land and property passed onto them by their familes.

 

The idea that people out of the blue will find themselves destitute in this way, will likely be for some other reason like mental illness or some other dysfunction. I imagine people will have sympathy for such a person and will contribute to charities who would try and rehabiltate them. Also lots of people often don't need any land and are quite happy to rent property from another whilst they move around with their work

 

This Mad Max (lifeboat) scenario is the last thing civilised people want. People will negotiate and some people will put their hands in their pockets. There are countless ways such conflicts can be either averted or resolved peacefully. The only fatal flaw I see, is that you imagine conflict as always escalating into violence.

[BorisM]

It just seems to me that your are arguing that rights should NOT be universal. That may very well be your opinion, but it's not consistant with libertarian principles. Those principles being:

 

*Self-ownership

 

*Private property in the fruits of one's labor(derived from self-ownership)

 

*Universal application, or equality of rights.

 

*Non-aggression

 

If you apply these principles consistantly, I don't see how you could not come to the following conclusions:

 

a)Unimproved land(that which has not been in any way modified by man) is not property. It is only the opportunity to create property.

 

b)A right to property doesn't make much sense if one has no right to create property. If we define homesteading as the act of creating property, then homesteading is a right.

 

c)If homesteading is a right, it should be an equal universal right.

 

d)If one's person's action is infringing upon another's right, this is an act of aggression.

 

Now, if somehow the world becomes so overpopulated that there was literally not enough land and resources for all to sustain themselves, then first-come, first served is as good a principle as any for aquiring resources, I suppose. Better to have one person live, than both die. However in the real world where(at least for now) there are plenty of resources, if someone is being prohibited from from homesteading, it is not because nature, or bad luck is denying them the opportunity. It is obviously the action of others that is denying them that opportunity. This is an act of aggression. No different than me putting my hand over your mouth while you are trying to speak your mind. If a birth defect denied you a tounge, that's misfortunate. If my action infringes on your right to speak, that's aggression.

 

Am I not making sense?

[PatrickC]

You're hypothsising though Boris. It's all 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybe's'. Most of which you seem to think can only have the worst outcomes.

[BorisM]

 

This Mad Max (lifeboat) scenario is the last thing civilised people want. People will negotiate and some people will put their hands in their pockets. There are countless ways such conflicts can be either averted or resolved peacefully. The only fatal flaw I see, is that you imagine conflict as always escalating into violence.

Hopefull in a stateless society issues like this will be resolved peacefully. I'm all for that. I also know that while most people are reasonable & peaceful there will always be those who try and exploit others. Either by direct violence, or by fraud. It's easy for people to get swindled if they don't understand their rights. If people percieve the (statist)land-ownership system we have now to be legitimate, they're likely to be swindled. It's just something I would like people to think about. I'm not proposing any "one size, fits all" solution. Hopefully, in a free society people can figure it out for themselves.

[prolix]

It is physically impossibe to create something from nothing. 

 

I just wrote a song for you. Your argument is invalid...

[BorisM]

 

I just wrote a song for you. Your argument is invalid...

So, now we're debating the laws of physics(lol)?!By the way, I'd love to hear your song! I'm a musician myself. Can you provide a link?

[cab21]

People are not equal because nature has given different people different physiology, skills, and talent. It is not the action of others that has made people unequal. Being born with only one arm is misfortunate. If I take a chainsaw & remove one of your arms, this is an act of aggression. Some ideas are more valuable than others, but the action of me having a big idea does not infringe upon your right to have a big idea. If I claim a disporportionate piece of land leaving you with little or none, my action has infringed on your equal right to claim the land. This would be an act of aggression, wheather intentional or not.

 

 

so person A develuping land that person B did not develup because person B was not around in the first place to develup the land

= person A using a chainsaw to remove person B's arm?

 

people don't claim land by having a idea on how to use it, they claim land by using it.

people can sell ideas on how to use the land, on land that has been used.

the right to sell ideas would be universial as the right to use the land. it does not mean every idea will be bought, or that people will have access to implement just any idea the person might have.

 

i think a band that recorded just anything any member ever proposed could figure out a proccess that not every idea needs to be proposed without feeling other band members are cutting off arms

[cynicist]

I think that what happens once we run out of land, air, or water is not the biggest problem facing humanity at the moment. Besides, that problem exists for statism as much as any other system. We certainly have a finite amount of resources, but that actually strengthens the Anarcho-capitalist argument since the free market is vastly more efficient than anything state driven. So what you see as a fatal flaw I see as the key advantage of the position.

[BorisM]

My final conclusion:

 

Property rights are derived from self-ownership. therefore (unimproved) land and natural resources are not property.

 

Rights are universal. Therefore the right to homestead is universal.

 

If the actions of one person infringes on the rights of another, this is aggression.

 

 

You can agree, or disagree. I don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been said. I base my conclusion on these basic principles: self-ownership, universality of rights, & non-aggression. No offense, but I'm tired of debating the subject for now & tired of repeating myself. I appreciate all the comments and I can't say this thread hasn't been educational. I'll check back from time to time & if anyone has any new questions, I'll give my two cents. For now, I have nothing else to say on this subject. 

[cab21]

how do you define rights?

 

how does it compare to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html?

[BorisM]

Damn! I realy thought I was done commenting on this subject for the time being & then another lightbulb turned on in my head! Another scenario to help illustrate my point. I just can't resist this one!

 

There exists a city(or a community, since there's no state). Let's call it An-capville. Within this city there are two somewhat wealthy investors. I already used Bob & Pete in another scenario, so this time we'll call them Ralph & Cecil. Both these investors are looking to make a profit.

 

Ralph has this great new invention he's come up with. We'll call it a "widget". He feels it's a really great product that will be in high demand amongst consumers. Ralph invests his money into creating a widget factory. He hires some contractors and builds his factory. He then hires some employees to help run the factory and the factory begins to crank out widgets. Ralph does some math & it turns out the cost of producing a widget is $7, so he works out a deal to sell his widgets to some of the local retailers for $10 each. The public falls in love with the widget & sales go through the roof!! Ralph makes piles and piles of money! Hooray for Ralph! Hooray for the market! Hooray for capitalism! A win-win situation all the way around, no denying it! Ralph is wealthier. The consumers are wealthier(they valued the widget more than it's cost, or they wouldn't have purchased it). The contractors that built the factory are wealthier. The employees that worked in the factory are wealthier. The retailers that sold Ralph's widget for him are wealthier. A large net increase of wealth for the residents of An-capville all the way around! All of it going into the pockets of those whoe produced things and/or provided services. Prosperity, hooray!!!

 

Now all the while this is going on, our other investor Cecil comes up with another plan. Cecil sees that An-capville is a growing expanding community(Thanks to guys like Ralph). Cecil decides to buy as much land as he can possibly afford just outside the city. What does he intend to do with it? He doesn't have to do anything with it. He just has to sit on it. He knows that as An-capville grows and expands, the demand for his land will increase & so will the price. 5 years pass and it appears Cecils instincts were right! the land is now worth triple what he paid for it! He sells his land and makes a huge profit! Hooray for Cecil!

 

Now the question is: How did Cecil increase his wealth? Did he create wealth? Well no. He didn't produce anything. Did he provide a valuable service to the community? No, he actually did just the opposite. He held valuable resourses out of productive use actually preventing a possible increase of wealth in the community. Did Cecil create any jobs? No, he prevented any employment that might have been created had the land been put to productive use. Cecil did not create wealth, he simply re-distributed wealth from other segments of the community to himself. Every penny Cecil made was at the expense of someone else. A classic win-lose situation. Does anyone see something wrong with this way of aquiring wealth? Ralph became wealthy by creating wealth. Cecil became wealthy by prohibiting the creation of wealth.

 

I think the whole problem comes from the idea of land as property. If we view property as the product of human action and land only as the opportunity create property, rather than property itself, then the idea that one has the right to buy and sell land gets fuzzy. If land is "property", then it can be exchanged, bought, or sold, just like any other form of property. If land is "opportunity", can land be bought and sold the same way property can? Another way of putting it, can one puchase the "right" to deny others oppourtunity? When Cecil purchased the land wasn't he just purchasing the so-called "right" to deny others the opportunity to use the land productively?

[cab21]

Now the question is: How did Cecil increase his wealth? Did he create wealth? Well no. He didn't produce anything. Did he provide a valuable service to the community? No, he actually did just the opposite. He held valuable resourses out of productive use actually preventing a possible increase of wealth in the community. Did Cecil create any jobs? No, he prevented any employment that might have been created had the land been put to productive use. Cecil did not create wealth, he simply re-distributed wealth from other segments of the community to himself. Every penny Cecil made was at the expense of someone else. A classic win-lose situation. Does anyone see something wrong with this way of aquiring wealth? Ralph became wealthy by creating wealth. Cecil became wealthy by prohibiting the creation of wealth.

 

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the property in the first place. the people that sold cecil the land must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his land could have allowed it to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the property gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the land that he owned to help the land value not depreciate the way it would if it was not maintained. the service he provided influenced property prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the land. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment  and have to sell at a lower price than the land was bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the land to cecil could have decided to make other used for the land by selling to someone else, or keeping it for other usages. someone had to homestead and own any land bought. this land outside the city would not just be land noone ever used.

 

I think the whole problem comes from the idea of land as property. If we view property as the product of human action and land only as the opportunity create property, rather than property itself, then the idea that one has the right to buy and sell land gets fuzzy. If land is "property", then it can be exchanged, bought, or sold, just like any other form of property. If land is "opportunity", can land be bought and sold the same way property can? Another way of putting it, can one puchase the "right" to deny others oppourtunity? When Cecil purchased the land wasn't he just purchasing the so-called "right" to deny others the opportunity to use the land productively?

 

productive is a subjective value, unless we have some judge of productivity or other system, say a democracy or republic where people that don't know what they are doing are over voting people that do know what they are doing . the right to use land is bought from those that have used the land. sometimes that means people that think they have a more productive idea won't be able to do it, if the idea cannot be sold to the owners. speculating on property values is a risk-reward investment just as much as someone thinking they can use the property in a more productive way.

 

if someone says, i think i can bulldoze your house, and add wealth by building a skyscraper, does he just get to do it like that? then the next who thinks they can knock down the skyscraper get to do so by the mere thought of being able to use the place more productivly? at least if there needs to be a sale that goes on, there is some accountability and responsibility going on. people need to raise the money for the investment, either through aquiring it on their own or proving to investers that the idea is worth investing in.

if a person wants to sell the house, then it can be bulldozed and the skyscraper built, but not until that house is sold.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pM4DvzSik

there is the full book, but this is a chapter on speculation in audio form

[BorisM]

 

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the property in the first place. the people that sold cecil the land must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his land could have allowed it to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the property gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the land that he owned to help the land value not depreciate the way it would if it was not maintained. the service he provided influenced property prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the land. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment  and have to sell at a lower price than the land was bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the land to cecil could have decided to make other used for the land by selling to someone else, or keeping it for other usages. someone had to homestead and own any land bought. this land outside the city would not just be land noone ever used.

 cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the slaves in the first place. the people that sold cecil the slaves must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his slaves could have allowed them to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the slaves gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the slaves that he owned to help the slaves value not depreciate the way it would if they were not maintained. the service he provided influenced slave prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the slaves. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment and have to sell at a lower price than the slaves were bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the slaves to cecil could have decided to make other use of the slaves by selling to someone else, or keeping them for other usages. someone had to capture and own any slaves bought. these slaves outside of captivity would not just be free people noone ever usedDoes purchasing something with legitimately aquired money justify an act that is otherwise unjust?

[cab21]

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the slaves in the first place. the people that sold cecil the slaves must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his slaves could have allowed them to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the slaves gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the slaves that he owned to help the slaves value not depreciate the way it would if they were not maintained. the service he provided influenced slave prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the slaves. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment and have to sell at a lower price than the slaves were bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the slaves to cecil could have decided to make other use of the slaves by selling to someone else, or keeping them for other usages. someone had to capture and own any slaves bought. these slaves outside of captivity would not just be free people noone ever used

 

 

this is the first post in the thread that you used the word "slave"

you did not say "slave" when you introduced the situation

there are no  legal "slaves" in anarcho capitalism

a  person can't own land , choose to sell land, and be called a slave, or what definition are you using?

capturing slaves is not legal , nor selling onself to be a slave, as self ownership is not something that can be bought or sold. 

 

Does purchasing something with legitimately aquired money justify an act that is otherwise unjust?

 

in your example, that is not legitimatly aquired money. there is no legitimacy in slavery.

 

ok, with land= slaves

you are saying it's not legitimate to own land at all?

[cynicist]

I think the whole problem comes from the idea of land as property. If we view property as the product of human action and land only as the opportunity create property, rather than property itself, then the idea that one has the right to buy and sell land gets fuzzy. If land is "property", then it can be exchanged, bought, or sold, just like any other form of property. If land is "opportunity", can land be bought and sold the same way property can? Another way of putting it, can one puchase the "right" to deny others oppourtunity? When Cecil purchased the land wasn't he just purchasing the so-called "right" to deny others the opportunity to use the land productively?

 

Buying land with the idea of flipping it for a profit is a risky venture. How does he know that the city won't simply expand in a different direction? If he's not doing anything with the land but sitting on it and waiting for it to rise in value, that seems like a really bad investment. Even if this guy got really lucky and bought the land at a good time and for a good price, the only way he would be able to sell it is if the person who buys his land thought that he could use it more productively than the current owner. If the land is priced too high, there will be no demand until it goes down, and meanwhile since the owner isn't doing anything with it, he is actually losing money compared to more productive investments.

 

I think that there is a natural balancing effect that way. 

[BorisM]

 

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the property in the first place. the people that sold cecil the land must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his land could have allowed it to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the property gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the land that he owned to help the land value not depreciate the way it would if it was not maintained. the service he provided influenced property prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the land. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment  and have to sell at a lower price than the land was bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the land to cecil could have decided to make other used for the land by selling to someone else, or keeping it for other usages. someone had to homestead and own any land bought. this land outside the city would not just be land noone ever used. productive is a subjective value, unless we have some judge of productivity or other system, say a democracy or republic where people that don't know what they are doing are over voting people that do know what they are doing . the right to use land is bought from those that have used the land. sometimes that means people that think they have a more productive idea won't be able to do it, if the idea cannot be sold to the owners. speculating on property values is a risk-reward investment just as much as someone thinking they can use the property in a more productive way. if someone says, i think i can bulldoze your house, and add wealth by building a skyscraper, does he just get to do it like that? then the next who thinks they can knock down the skyscraper get to do so by the mere thought of being able to use the place more productivly? at least if there needs to be a sale that goes on, there is some accountability and responsibility going on. people need to raise the money for the investment, either through aquiring it on their own or proving to investers that the idea is worth investing in.if a person wants to sell the house, then it can be bulldozed and the skyscraper built, but not until that house is sold. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pM4DvzSikthere is the full book, but this is a chapter on speculation in audio form

The video makes a good point, but keep in mind the video is referring to food speculation. Food is a product of someone's labor(for example: crops are planted, nurtured, harvested, etc...) which make it a legitimate form of property, based on self-ownership. Land is not the same. When one speculates in "land", he is really just purchasing the priviledge of denying others the right to homestead that land. 

you are saying it's not legitimate to own land at all?

I don't think one can own something that's not property. If property is derived from self-ownership then "land" is not property. Now, I do understand that exclusive use of land is necessary for property to be created, but exclusive use is not necessarily the same as ownership.When someone "purchases" land, he is paying the previous holder of that land for giving up his right to use that piece of land. The "seller" has every right to agree to relinquish use of the land for compensation. The problem is the "purchaser" is not compensating others who might wish to use that land. If the "purchaser" paid rent(the price to be determined by the market) on the land & that rent was divided up amongst all the members of the community, he would indeed be compensating everyone who might want to use that land, rather than just one person. In this way he could exclusively use the land, as is necessary to create property, while at the same time, justly compensating everyone else for infringing on their equal right to use the land.

[cynicist]

If property is derived from self-ownership then "land" is not property.

 

I'm not sure how that follows. It sounds like you are suggesting that because unused land is not an effect of your actions that it can't be considered property. If you are paying for exclusive use of something (which is a big component of ownership, though as you say not exactly the same thing) it doesn't mean that it is property but it does mean that it could be, a necessary but not sufficient component. If I buy a canvas and hold onto it, is it still my property even though I haven't painted anything on it yet? To use a ridiculous hypothetical, what if a bunch of artists move into my community and want my particular canvas for some reason and I change my mind and sell it to one of them for a profit, should I compensate everyone who might have wanted to use my canvas while I was holding it?

 

It's not a perfect analogy but I want to illustrate that you are using a lot of assumptions about land being different from everything else. Why does everyone have an equal right to use a particular piece of land?

[cab21]

The video makes a good point, but keep in mind the video is referring to food speculation. Food is a product of someone's labor(for example: crops are planted, nurtured, harvested, etc...) which make it a legitimate form of property, based on self-ownership. Land is not the same. When one speculates in "land", he is really just purchasing the priviledge of denying others the right to homestead that land.

 

land ownership is a product of someones labor as well. people don't get a claim on land just by declaring a claim on land. the ownershio comes as a product of labor.

if someone has a field of crops, how is another person supposed to use the same land in a way that does not ruin the crops?

a person can't plant their own crops without ruining the crops of the first person. a person can't build a house without ruining the crops of the first person. a person cannot build a road without ruining the crops of the first person.

by land speculation, the land is only owned through labor , so a person would have to be using the land in some way to get the land.

 

I don't think one can own something that's not property. If property is derived from self-ownership then "land" is not property. Now, I do understand that exclusive use of land is necessary for property to be created, but exclusive use is not necessarily the same as ownership.When someone "purchases" land, he is paying the previous holder of that land for giving up his right to use that piece of land. The "seller" has every right to agree to relinquish use of the land for compensation. The problem is the "purchaser" is not compensating others who might wish to use that land. If the "purchaser" paid rent(the price to be determined by the market) on the land & that rent was divided up amongst all the members of the community, he would indeed be compensating everyone who might want to use that land, rather than just one person. In this way he could exclusively use the land, as is necessary to create property, while at the same time, justly compensating everyone else for infringing on their equal right to use the land.

 

how are you defining community?

how are you defining market?

 

if a community is formed through voluntary association, the individual himself can be the whole community. if the individual has to accept others as part of the community others mere wish to be part of the community, that's more of a hostile takeover than anything else.

 

if the seller decides what to sell for. and the buyer decides what to buy for, the wishes of third party people who have "ideas" don't get to push up or knock down these prices just by mere ideas. otherwise people are going to end up oweing unlimited amounts to people that did not even do anything.

 

are people just able to say, "i want 10 pounds of gold for not using the land", and therefor be owed 10 pounds of gold just for saying the person wanted it? if people bid, and 20 pounds of gold is the winner, and 9 others bid 19 gold, does the winner have to pay 190 gold to the losing bidders? and thats just 10 people, let alone some whole "community" if anyone who wants in gets in and people are not allowed to choose their own communitys and be communities of 1.

 

in any bidding situation, the sum of all bids, is greater than the sum of the winning bid. if the winning bid has to pay the sum of the losing bids, to the losing bidders, how on earth will this system work? the profit would have to be extraordinary sums.

[BorisM]

 

I'm not sure how that follows. It sounds like you are suggesting that because unused land is not an effect of your actions that it can't be considered property. If you are paying for exclusive use of something (which is a big component of ownership, though as you say not exactly the same thing) it doesn't mean that it is property but it does mean that it could be, a necessary but not sufficient component. If I buy a canvas and hold onto it, is it still my property even though I haven't painted anything on it yet? To use a ridiculous hypothetical, what if a bunch of artists move into my community and want my particular canvas for some reason and I change my mind and sell it to one of them for a profit, should I compensate everyone who might have wanted to use my canvas while I was holding it? It's not a perfect analogy but I want to illustrate that you are using a lot of assumptions about land being different from everything else. Why does everyone have an equal right to use a particular piece of land?

 A canvas is a man-made product, isn't it? I mean they don't naturally just grow on trees. Some one had to make the canvass. It is the product of someone's labor, that's why it's property.I think if we are going to define something as "property" there has to be some basic moral principle that justifies it's ownership.I can justify ownership of man-made property(Houses, Cars, food, canvasses,etc...) based on the principle of self ownership. If I own myself, I own the consequences of my actions. These items would not have existed had someone not created them.Now if things not created by human action are property, what is the principle that justifies ownership?  

land ownership is a product of someones labor as well. people don't get a claim on land just by declaring a claim on land. the ownershio comes as a product of labor.if someone has a field of crops, how is another person supposed to use the same land in a way that does not ruin the crops?a person can't plant their own crops without ruining the crops of the first person. a person can't build a house without ruining the crops of the first person. a person cannot build a road without ruining the crops of the first person.by land speculation, the land is only owned through labor , so a person would have to be using the land in some way to get the land.

  Obviously, two, or more people can't use the same land at the same time, so who has more of a right to use a given piece of land? The guy that plants crops first, the new guy that wants to plant his own crops there, or the guy that wants to build a house? What gives the first guy any more right to use the land than the others? I'm not saying anyone should destroy the first guy's crops, but would he not owe them some kind of compensation if his use is denying them the right to homestead the land as he's done? Why does he get to take as much as he wants, if that action infringes on the equal rights of the other two guys?

[cab21]

he  could owe them something, if they owe him something.

giving " we won't bulldoze your crops" does not count as giving something.

 

i don't think a economic system can work where one person gets without oweing anything to the people that have to give.

whether capital, or labor, or service, or some other way to give in order to receive, there has to be trade that goes on.

[cynicist]

A canvas is a man-made product, isn't it? I mean they don't naturally just grow on trees. Some one had to make the canvass. It is the product of someone's labor, that's why it's property.I think if we are going to define something as "property" there has to be some basic moral principle that justifies it's ownership.I can justify ownership of man-made property(Houses, Cars, food, canvasses,etc...) based on the principle of self ownership. If I own myself, I own the consequences of my actions. These items would not have existed had someone not created them.Now if things not created by human action are property, what is the principle that justifies ownership?

 

You missed my point, which was that just because something is unused currently doesn't mean it can't be someone's property. So by that principle just because land is not being actively utilized doesn't mean it can't be owned. It also doesn't follow that just because land is not man made that it cannot be considered property. We don't waste time talking about ownership of air and sunlight because those concepts aren't meaningful since those resources are too plentiful for that to matter. Particular kinds of land and water (with a suitable climate or in the case of water, potability) are scarcer and therefore more desirable to us. I think a possible principle behind ownership of those resources is their potential for utilization as much as current utilization. We know human beings require fresh water and so access to fresh water is desirable as well as some way to transform that resource into something useful for humans. (bottled water, irrigation system, etc) Nobody cares about owning the Arctic for anything besides shipping lanes and a few natural resources, if those weren't a factor then property rights over that area would be as meaningless as property rights over space.

 

Right now we only care about parts of the ocean for fishing opportunities but I guarantee you the minute other uses for that area become known/viable rights to all oceans on the planet will be divy'd up. A theoretical example would be seasteading or some kind of floating power generation through solar or bio tech. The potential for that stuff just isn't there yet. How we determine access is tricky but I don't think claiming that we all own a piece of everything non-man made on the planet is a reasonable way to do it. We also can't say that no one owns it, otherwise you get the tragedy of the commons situation where a lake used by multiple companies gets polluted because no one owns it and therefore no one has a clear incentive or responsibility to maintain it.

[P. Mason]

I disagree with the self ownership claim. Something cannot be simultaneously the owned and the owner of itself. And anything owned must be property. One has self soveriegnty but ownership is meaningless. I cannot sell or exchange myself I can only relinquish my body or body parts. I cannot vacate my own will so I cannot relinquish my own will. The best I can do is agree to abide by another's commands.

[BorisM]

Interesting commentary regarding homesteading in a stateless society:

http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/08/12/use-it-or-lose-it/

[Xeeg]

Different spin on topic.

Force (in Newtons) is a physical entity that is fundamental to the nature of our universe. There is no way to avoid "Force" in our lives as there will always be things like hurricanes, the need to eat, the need to regulate body temperature etc.

 

So now the question is, should we have rules regarding the "use of Force" in order to compel other's actions?

 

Let's consider the options.

 

No! - Do not make rules regarding the "use of Force"

 

So what happens? We have a perfect case study! We didn't have rules regarding the "use of Force" (other than natural physical limitations) as we evolved into present day humans, so we can use this as our starting point. What happened?

Over time we made rules regarding the use of force.... lulz

Anarchists always seem to forget this. We started with Anarchy and it led to what we have now. If we go back to Anarchy, guess what - it's going to naturally separate into power structures, and the only way to stop it is to make rules... Do you see the circular logic here?

 

Ok, so now we see that whether we like it or not, rules about "the use of Force" are inevitable. And a rule ain't a rule unless it's enforced. In order to enforce rules about "the use of Force" we need to have an entity that can exert more Force than the ones who break the rules. This is how the whole concept of GOVERNMENT originated in the first place.

 

As some people correctly identify, if the government has a monopoly on Force, then they are free to make or break any rule because obviously there is no Force more powerful than them. This discovery is what led to present day democracy, with attempts at checks and balances so that the "use of Force" enforcement is in some kind of loop. It is an ATTEMPT to tie the circle in such a way that any power has a check on it by another power that is greater.

 

Unfortunately for humanity as a group, this is REALLY FREAKING HARD TO DO! It has been a much more difficult road than any of us can imagine. Mother nature is constantly trying to kill us, our evolution has implanted the desire for self-interest at the forefront of our actions, and we are developing new technologies with greater and greater ability to use Force every day. And since "self-interest" can be such a twisted human obscurity, when the wrong people get too much of the "use of Force", bad stuff happens.

As you can clearly see, the delicate loop we have made to check power structures can go out of balance at any moment due to a large variety of factors. Just look at history. Added to that, the universe is constantly growing and creating new things.

 

But one thing is for sure, "GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT" is not the solution to the problem of "How do we make and enforce rules regarding the "use of Force"?"

 

It's going to be a loooooooooooooooooong process before utopia folks...

[Waster]

This topic is exactly one of the main challenges of anarcho capitalism. And one of the reason why i changed from right libertarian to left libertarian.

 

This is a similar problem. Lets suppose you have a community that is happy and self-sufficient and sovereign. Because of war or overpopulation some people search for a new place to live. What should you do as a community? If you try to refuse them, then you effectively deny their existence. But you are not a ruler. You can offer to live in your community at the requirement that they are (wage) slaves or serfs. Then we get a feudal system of capitalistic system where some people have more rights then others and some people have to live miserably. Or you let them in as full citizens, but then the well being of the whole community can decrease, especially if there are a lot of immigrants.

 

To me the second one looks the most fair. Especially if they can become full citizens over time when they obey the rules and fit in and they contribute to the community. Poverty and  hierarchies are inevitable. Especially if there is overpopulation. An even more radical approach is to be anti-natalist and be pro anti-conception to minimize wars and overpopulation and prevent these kinds of problems.

 

Another way to look at the problem is who has control? If everyone is sovereign - there are really no leaders - then anyone can kill you, can rob you or can enslave you. There is no protection unless you are able to protect yourself. This is what most people think of and are afraid of when they hear the word anarchy. However, if there is some form of authority and protection to protect your property and your safety and slavery is forbidden, then you are not sovereign anymore. There is some form of control and hierarchy. And it might be smaller in size, but it still is a government. There is no question when a DRO becomes a government. A DRO is already a government by definition, otherwise it wouldnt have the control and authority to resolve disputes.

 

I long believed anarcho capitalism was a utopia, but it is an inconsistent idea.

[JSDev]

I've been thinking about this question and I haven't worked it out yet.

 

I think that the only thing we can really own is our bodies. All other things are un-owned. It seems to me that all claims of ownership over raw materials, land, and other natural resources can only have been acquired through coercion. In the past that coercion was justified by saying that the land was granted by god. We see this today. Who can rightfully make a claim on land in Isreal? The Torah is a legally binding ledger recording the transfer of land from god to the jews. Unfortunately for them, the palestinians have their own divine ledger.

 

All ownership of natural resources can be traced back to some form of violent and often deadly struggle. Does this mean then that might indeed makes right when it comes to the acquisition of natural resources?

 

EDIT: I just want to add that I recognize that the scope of the violence is largely the effect of the State, but in principle, how else would people resolve ownership disputes over natural/un-owned resources, if more civil means proved ineffective? I'm not suggesting a state is necessary to resolve these disputes. I'm only pointing out a kind of infinite regress that happens when trying to determine ownership of natural resources from which you may rightfully trade. Are you the rightful owner of a lawn mower if it turns out that the lawn mower was stolen? Does the original owner of the mower get to take it back? What if I took it apart and built a go cart out of it... do they get to take the go cart? What if the original owner of the mower built it from a metal that was mined on american soil which was previously stolen from the native americans? Where do we draw the line? Where that line gets drawn often seems arbitrary (or violent).

[Xeeg]

JSDev, unfortunately for ideologies, history shows that indeed might makes right. It may not be an "eat or be eaten" world, but it is definitely a "grow spikes or get eaten" world.While I myself am a very non-violent person and always try to solve difficult situations with mutual agreements, there are times it simply wont work. Violence will always be used as it is the most effective means of coercion. Yes we may not like it, but tell that to mother nature and see if she cares. It is fundamental to living structures and patterns.

 

I may fear the NSA and government control of the population, but at least it is in their best interest to keep us healthy and productive. If they go too far we will have a revolution and replace them. Yes, it sucks, but it is part of the human struggle as history shows. Their power is gone if there is no one able to work for them.

 

I also fear the crazy lunatics that care nothing for humanity or even their own lives and wish for as much destruction on the world as possible. Yes these people exist, and some have lots of money and power. It does take some form of collective might to stop them.There are many good reasons that we evolved the government systems of today, and trying to "grow giant spikes" is exactly one of those reasons. When the predators are sleeping, these spikes may seem too heavy, large and cumbersome. Shrinking them or axing them to become more efficient in other areas is a risky venture not to be taken lightly.

[Andrew79]

Some people hate governments for all the rightfully recognized ills they cause, but it is exactly because of governments that the cold war did not end up in a global annihilation.

 

So if there were no governments then the cold war could have ended in global annihilation.

 

You need to think that one through a little more.

[Xeeg]

Yeah I should probably edit that out, its not a very good argument. Thanks for pointing it out. I have adjusted the post to be more in line with what I am thinking.