Where does one place the "labor theory of property", on the left - right economic scale

Is the far right equal to private ownership of all land/natural resources incl. unused land/natural resources in the sense that anyone would have the right to claim property rights without mixing their labor with the property; i.e. does "labor theory of property" belong closer to the center in the sense that non-homesteaded land would be "collectively" owned or unowned in the sense that anyone amongst everyone could mix their labor with it without asking anyones permission first?

 

Is a left-right spectrum useful here?

For example, Marxists and Proudhonian socialists differ theoretically on the labor theory of property acquisition, but they reach basically the same political conclusions.

For the natural rights theorists, property would be initially acquired by mixing labour with it, whereupon one acquires absolute dominion over it which cannot be abdicated except by voluntary alienation or abandonment.

Marxists accept the labour theory, but they extend the notion beyond initial acquisition of property.  According to Marxists, whenever someone legitimately mixes their labour with something, they are staking a claim to a share of ownership in it, even if it is already owned by others.  It is not possible to alienate labour, for Marxists, so it is not possible to retain an absolute right of ownership over something if you're going to allow other people to work on it.  The mixing of labour always creates a claim of ownership in a share of the fruits of one's labour, and it is not possible for the intention of the parties to change this.  A contract of employment is "exploitation".  The workers must own the means of production.

Proudhon and Bakunin, on the other hand, believed that a claim to acquisition of property is literally theft.  Acquiring property is nonsense, they say.  Everyone has a prima facie equal right to everything in the universe, so attempting to homestead something is stealing from everyone else.  By attempting to use an unused thing, you're stealing it from the guy who might wander by three minutes later and want to use it.  The most just way of living, therefore, must be an entirely equal distribution of all property, so that we're all "stealing" from each other equally.  Marxists can reach essentially the same political conclusions as these guys - the desirability of communism in the long-run - because the Marxist implementation of the labour theory, if you take it to its logical conclusion, implies that almost everyone interacting in society owns a share in everyone else.  If you can't labour in a factory without expecting a proportional claim of ownership over it and the goods it produces, then you also can't labour towards a fellow human being's happiness or continued good health without literally acquiring a claim of ownership over a share in that person's productivity.  A person is surely a capital good or 'means of production' rather than a consumer good, so we cannot cooperate without becoming slaves to each other.

Hence, even though the Marxists accept the labor theory, their interpretation of it means that you are literally owned partially by everyone else in society.  You can't go into the wilderness and claim unclaimed stuff for yourself and your voluntary associates without the permission of everyone else, because you do not have an unlimited claim of ownership over yourself.  Anything you acquire as your property must also be everyone else's, as they own a share in you.  Hence, until we all wake up one day to find ourselves in the communist utopia, such an undertaking must be directed centrally, i.e. by the state. i.e. by the real plutocratic elite.

The labour theory, as it is interpreted and applied by Marxists, implies collectivism as the natural state of affairs, and justifies a highly stratified and centralised authoritarian state to enforce this collectivism, until the undesirable primitive impulses or genes, or whatever they are, that cause humans to think and act as individuals are eradicated by force from the species, and the survivors can awaken to a communist utopia in which such a way of living won't seem so terrible, brutal and alien to them as it does to us.

The only folks stereotypically on "the right" that I can imagine who would reject the labour theory of property altogether would be positivists in the tradition of David Hume.  i.e. "Whatever is working well for the established plutocratic elite right now must be the most desirable system we can practically hope for."  Nothing must ever be done for the first time, might-makes-right, stop-hitting-yourself etc.

I don't think the left-right spectrum is helpful when talking about political economic theory.  It's more a case of individualism versus collectivism, or whether you're interested in discerning the simplest theory of natural property which doesn't necessitate legitimised coercion.

James:

Is a left-right spectrum useful here?

Is it useful anywhere?

 

James:

The only folks stereotypically on "the right" that I can imagine who would reject the labour theory of property altogether would be positivists in the tradition of David Hume.  i.e. "Whatever is working well for the established plutocratic elite right now must be the most desirable system we can practically hope for."  Nothing must ever be done for the first time, might-makes-right, stop-hitting-yourself etc.

Do you think Austrian-School economists don't reject the labor theory of property altogether? Why or why not?

Is there some theory where you don't need everyone else's permission to homestead land but there is no private property and instead all may use anything as long as they don't violate self-ownership? Just curious.

Robert LeFevre believed in the Austrian-school, although he was more of a philosopher than an economist. He thought that labor theory for acquisition of property was neither "necessary nor sufficient." Let say you lay claim to and have plans for 100 acres of land to build a house and silo on, the rest of which you were going to use for a farm, and someone just starts building on your planned-for plot where you have not yet homesteaded. If this were deemed legitimate, this would detract from incentives to make most anything other than small/fast projects. He seemed to think claim + plan was enough, and that it would be useful to do something like post notices around town (or use the interwebs) dictating the exact dimensions of your land.

Do you think Austrian-School economists don't reject the labor theory of property altogether? Why or why not?

Austrians reject the labour theory of value, but accept the labour theory of property.  You don't wanna get those two confused...  The labour theory of value is associated with Marx's extension of Locke's thinking.  'Labour theory of property' is just another way of saying 'homesteading principle', really.  It doesn't matter that value is subjectively assigned; it should still be possible to determine whether someone has started using something, or whether it has been abandoned etc.

  As we have stated above, the origin of all property is ulti­mately traceable to the appropriation of an unused nature-given factor by a man and his “mixing” his labor with this natural fac­tor to produce a capital good or a consumers’ good. For when we trace back through gifts and through exchanges, we must reach a man and an unowned natural resource. In a free society, any piece of nature that has never been used is unowned and is subject to a man’s ownership through his first use or mixing of his labor with this resource. - Rothbard, Man, Economy and The State, p.170

Is there some theory where you don't need everyone else's permission to homestead land but there is no private property and instead all may use anything as long as they don't violate self-ownership? Just curious.

No, I don't think so.  I think ownership means the power to act in terms of an object without needing anyone's permission.

Let say you lay claim to and have plans for 100 acres of land to build a house and silo on, the rest of which you were going to use for a farm, and someone just starts building on your planned-for plot where you have not yet homesteaded. If this were deemed legitimate, this would detract from incentives to make most anything other than small/fast projects. He seemed to think claim + plan was enough, and that it would be useful to do something like post notices around town (or use the interwebs) dictating the exact dimensions of your land.

Maybe it's necessary to at least secure physical possession in a way that will be customarily recognised, i.e. by building a fence and/or boundary roads, posting a guard etc.  Stake your claim, as it were.  Even if you haven't yet acquired an ownership right through homesteading, it doesn't mean that someone can disturb your peaceful possession of the thing if its unowned.  But I don't think you can stake your claim from afar.

James:

Austrians reject the labour theory of value, but accept the labour theory of property.  You don't wanna get those two confused...  The labour theory of value is associated with Marx's extension of Locke's thinking.  'Labour theory of property' is just another way of saying 'homesteading principle', really.  It doesn't matter that value is subjectively assigned; it should still be possible to determine whether someone has started using something, or whether it has been abandoned etc.

  As we have stated above, the origin of all property is ulti­mately traceable to the appropriation of an unused nature-given factor by a man and his “mixing” his labor with this natural fac­tor to produce a capital good or a consumers’ good. For when we trace back through gifts and through exchanges, we must reach a man and an unowned natural resource. In a free society, any piece of nature that has never been used is unowned and is subject to a man’s ownership through his first use or mixing of his labor with this resource. - Rothbard, Man, Economy and The State, p.170

Thanks for pointing out that distinction. :)

Is this what left-libertarians like Kevin Carson mean by the "subjective labor theory of value"? I'm assuming that "labor" in the above refers to any effort expended to acquire something else - e.g. picking an apple from a tree in order to eat it thus constitutes "labor".

James:

Is a left-right spectrum useful here?

For example, Marxists and Proudhonian socialists differ theoretically on the labor theory of property acquisition, but they reach basically the same political conclusions.

...etc

Where does one put the libertarian/ancap version of the "labor theory of property"(will the unclaimed land be owned in a somewhat "collective" way, i.e. not active regulation of the use of the land, but anyone/everyone can claim ownership by mixing their labor with parts of the unclaimed land/resources) in the political spectre(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum), i.e. left(collectivist ownership)/middle/right(individual/private ownership)? Does individual ownership(ref. "more a case of individualism versus collectivism") imply that individuals can claim ownership of all land regardless of whether or not they have mixed there labor with the land?