Tom P Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 As Voluntaryists, we well understand how private enterprise would be practically and morally superior to the state at providing all products and services, including rights protection services. However, I'm not sure I've ever heard or read of an explanation of how real property claims (real estate) would be established and/or maintained in a transition from a statist society to a free society. The establishment of real property rights are foundational to civilization for reasons we “right” libertarians well understand. It seems likely that the historical chain of ownership of privately owned real estate deeds, for pragmatic reasons, would have to continue as the interruption of such rights would cause extreme societal chaos. But is there any guarantee that a free society would agree to uphold such prior arrangements? How would such an agreement even be made? Popular vote? Might this be a defense for the Minarchist camp? For “public” lands formerly held by the state, it seems likely that this land would revert to the “commons,” available to anyone who could properly homestead it in the Lockean sense. It's also quite possible that these “public” lands would be auctioned off in the liquidation of the state's holdings. The issue of “justly acquired property” and the exclusive ownership thereof is obviously a pretty contentious item among all political ideologies, I was just wondering if we have a practical solution here? Has Rothbard or Hoppe or someone else addressed this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Here's how I would want this problem to be solved: If a person, or group of people, can present proof that they are the legitimate private owners of a piece of government property, then I would want their property rights restored. If the claim can be made by multiple people (such as multiple descendants of a deceased owner) then I think those claimants should be given simultaneous ownership of the property. If their ownership conflicts with the current user of the property, then I think the rightful owners and the user should find an acceptable agreement on how to proceed. If nobody can establish ownership, then I believe the current user should be given operational control, and the ownership should be issued to the former applicable government constituents in the form of shares of ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Let's pretend you are trying to sell me (and the other FDR members) that we need rights protection services. Why should we pay into your services? What benefits will we receive and what is the projected cost? My initial impression is that most people aren't going to require your services. Possession is 9/10 of the way to proving ownership. Most people live in or have a close association with their real estate. Such people won't have any need for a real estate DPO. For individuals or companies that hold a wider array of real estate assets, they will be interested in chasing out squatters or protecting their assets from looters and thieves. This is where your services and private security will come into play. But is there any guarantee that a free society would agree to uphold such prior arrangements? How would such an agreement even be made? Popular vote? Might this be a defense for the Minarchist camp? Why do we, as individuals, require any guarantees regarding real estate in a free society? A free society cannot agree to anything because it's not an autonomous entity. It doesn't exist. People exist, and can find a way to fend for themselves if needed. If people agree to exchange property, why can't they find agreement themselves? I'm not sure how the rest of society factors into transitions or transactions. The issue of “justly acquired property” and the exclusive ownership thereof is obviously a pretty contentious item among all political ideologies, I was just wondering if we have a practical solution here? Can you elaborate on the difference between justly and unjustly acquired property? How is it a problem? Why do we need a practical solution beyond dissolving the state apparatus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom P Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 1) Let's pretend you are trying to sell me (and the other FDR members) that we need rights protection services. Why should we pay into your services? What benefits will we receive and what is the projected cost? My initial impression is that most people aren't going to require your services. Possession is 9/10 of the way to proving ownership. Most people live in or have a close association with their real estate. Such people won't have any need for a real estate DPO. For individuals or companies that hold a wider array of real estate assets, they will be interested in chasing out squatters or protecting their assets from looters and thieves. This is where your services and private security will come into play. 2) Why do we, as individuals, require any guarantees regarding real estate in a free society? A free society cannot agree to anything because it's not an autonomous entity. It doesn't exist. People exist, and can find a way to fend for themselves if needed. If people agree to exchange property, why can't they find agreement themselves? I'm not sure how the rest of society factors into transitions or transactions. 3) Can you elaborate on the difference between justly and unjustly acquired property? How is it a problem? Why do we need a practical solution beyond dissolving the state apparatus? 1) I disagree, I think nearly everyone would want their real property rights to be insured. "Possession” alone would not be adequate if the property were to be used as collateral in a lending situation, for example. Some defensible guarantee of whom the rightful owner is would be essential. 2) Because you cannot have a stable, modern civilization without defensible real property rights. 3) Some might make the claim that no lands have been justly acquired because they were originally appropriated by (state) conquest. (Marxists?, left anarchists?) I think the answer is that the person with the most defensible title would be the rightful owner. If I had a deed for a plot of land that could be traced back for say 100 years, I would hope in a free society that that legal claim would take precedent over a squatter, even if I were not “actively homesteading” the land. The reason I bring this up is because it seems like some anarchists are way too cavalier about this stuff. A free society doesn't mean free land for all. If modern civilization is to be maintained without some regression to a Robinson Crusoe like state of affairs, then some very definite private property rights would have to be maintained to maximize utility and avoid a “tragedy of the commons” scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Hard to say as it depends a lot on how fast it comes. If it is gradual, say over a few hundred years, well then the changes are pretty easy to envision. If they come fast, well, there will be a lot of chaos and confusion. Many different solutions will be tried out, lots of bad decisions will be made, and eventually the market will begin to stabilize. To be clear with my prediction, there likely won't be any sort of equal opportunity for acquiring government assets. Those with connections will likely have first dibs, people who have no reason to make out on top will, and most people are likely to be left out. Public land is a different matter as it isn't even homesteaded for the most part. A scenario I like to imagine is of a government collapsing, multiple groups trying to establish a new government, and since violence would be out of the question at this point in history, you'd have multiple DRO type governments attempting to provide services in order to win over people in a certain area. This over time would transition into real DRO type businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom P Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Hard to say as it depends a lot on how fast it comes. If it is gradual, say over a few hundred years, well then the changes are pretty easy to envision. If they come fast, well, there will be a lot of chaos and confusion. Many different solutions will be tried out, lots of bad decisions will be made, and eventually the market will begin to stabilize. To be clear with my prediction, there likely won't be any sort of equal opportunity for acquiring government assets. Those with connections will likely have first dibs, people who have no reason to make out on top will, and most people are likely to be left out. Public land is a different matter as it isn't even homesteaded for the most part. A scenario I like to imagine is of a government collapsing, multiple groups trying to establish a new government, and since violence would be out of the question at this point in history, you'd have multiple DRO type governments attempting to provide services in order to win over people in a certain area. This over time would transition into real DRO type businesses. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts