Who would own the great pyramids of Giza in a truly free society?
The Great Pyramid of Giza foundation. You can be a member.
I would say - one of The Great Pyramid of Giza foundations.
Auction.
Auction presupposes that there is already owner. Question is who would own it in the first place. Or am I not getting something?
After some more thought - noone can say for sure - we can only make guesses. I guess that after government downfall with it presumed ownership of everything I would recognize property right of whoever first homesteads them -be it one person or group of persons. Question is if other people would recognize this claim as well.
The government should get the money and pay off whatever debt it can before liquidation. Not to say that the government is the just owner, but there is no other practical way. If the government is already gone, I have no idea. Something would come up by itself.
limitgov: Who would own the great pyramids of Giza in a truly free society?
That really depends on the system of property the community approved of. If the pyramids were sacred to a given people who comprise the vast majority of a given society living in that area, probably no one would own them. If it were a bunch of Americans that lived around there, probably some respected organization would try to preserve them for visitors, and if people generally liked their policies, their right to set such policies and to have quasi-ownership would likely be upheld in customary law courts (if it came to that). If it were a bunch of people who cared little about artifacts and wonders, probably someone would just homestead them in a way that people found generally acceptable, and maybe even destroy them if the land could be put to a purpose more desired by most of the people, or if such actions were generally condoned.
You can't fight the general will of the people; what you can do is not create centralized power structures that give some people's will (the majority or a minority) disproportionate influence.
Why anarchy fails
I suppose the Egyptian state would auction the Pyramids off to some hotel that maintains them for paying tourists. And if people care enough about preserving them as a publicly available landmark, they donate to a foundation that buys them. There would simply be competition. We know that who ever ends up with the Pyramids puts the greatest value in them, and that would be their most efficient use. We can't simply presume that. Unless we let the market process work we can't know what use benefits humanity the most. Maybe the Pyramids most valuable use is as a warehouse for traders.
It's more interesting to talk about who would own the whales. If the Japanese owned the whales, we would have whale meat. People who think the whales should be saved will get together in a foundation and buy them. Then they can decide to protect them. Private ownership of endangered animals actually succeeds at protecting them, bureaucratic bans and legislation does not. Elephant heards in Africa that are privately owned to be leased out for hunting are growing, while those that are publicly owned are diminishing. In the 19th century whales were hunted for whale oil, petroleum made that unprofitable. So capitalism saved the whales, not activists.
If the whales were privately owned by foundations, those who want to protect them would have to pay the price. Bureaucratic legislation simply imposes that cost on others, mostly poor people. All of us never tasted whale meat, and competing products like fish are a little bit more expensive. So everybody who buys fish pays a little bit to save the whales, not the activists who made that choice. If we can impose the cost of a choice on others, but earn the gratification, of course we have no incentive to not have government impose our preferences. That's why the state has become this tool for imposing our morality on everyone.
I see where you coming from but isnt it a bit naive to think government will just dissolve itself out of own will of individuals that compsomise it? I just don't see it as practically viable. They would have too much to lose.
boniek:I see where you coming from but isnt it a bit naive to think government will just dissolve itself out of own will of individuals that compsomise it? I just don't see it as practically viable. They would have too much to loose.
Individuals in the government are driven by incentives like anyone else. The Egyptian leadership does have an incentive to auction the Pyramids to a profit-mongering capitalist. I think it's reasonable to say that the world will gradually privatize. And eventually government will wither away.
Though democracy destroys that incentive. The mob votes for what feels good, not what makes economic sense. They think public ownership means that something is "free", because the cost on society is indirect.
"I think it's reasonable to say that the world will gradually privatize. And eventually government will wither away."
I see exactly opposite trend today.
Thirty years ago a third of humanity was living under socialism, three hundred years ago practically all of humanity was engaged in subsistence agriculture being exploited by tiny elites. So what is the trend?
However first homesteads them. Problem solved :)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
It would probably still be government owned.
The state owns them and will continue to under the free market, unless it collapses into bankruptcy, in which case the bankruptcy judge will decide.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Me, if I was wealthy.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
AJ:You can't fight the general will of the people; what you can do is not create centralized power structures that give some people's will (the majority or a minority) disproportionate influence.
I agree. But what if the general will of the people was to "create centralized power structures that give them" (proportionate or disproportionate) influence? True question -- not meant as a discussion-starter.
As for the pyramids... They'll be mine as I'll be the first one to homestead (mark, acquire) them by urination. More seriously, to those who propose ownership via homesteading (or any other property-acquisition ritual), "ownership" is only as valid (legitimate) as the "general will" of the people will allow. I assume that my belief that I had "acquired" the pyramids by urinating on them (or by "mixing" some other bodily fluid or labor with them) imposes no obligations on you to accept it as legitimate. Or does it?
Z.
z1235:I agree. But what if the general will of the people was to "create centralized power structures that give them" (proportionate or disproportionate) influence?
Then there would be a state, but see my answer here. For this specifically, if the people only knew that such centralized power structures inevitably fall into the hands of a small elite, they might not have such a will. That is why to educate.
AJ:Then there would be a state, but see my answer here. For this specifically, if the people only knew that such centralized power structures inevitably fall into the hands of a small elite, they might not have such a will. That is why to educate.
As I wrote in my reply there, seems we're in complete agreement.
The great pyramids of Giza were malinvestments.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
In a free market, the natural elites called pharaohs would return.
And it would be maintained through the mummy curse. Or some type of Indiana Jones-esque traps. Which was the original method of protecting private property.
I would.
They were inspired heavily by the philosophy of "we're all dead in the end", I think.
The CIA, since both the great pyramids and anarcho-capitalism are a democratic/cia/jewish conspiracy to defame the Iran-Germany-North Korea axis.
Esuric: The great pyramids of Giza were malinvestments.
Hahaha thanks for the laugh to start off my weekend with :)
If we acknowledge the government's ownership of the pyramids then we legitimize the government's claim of ownership of all of the land within its borders right? Isn't this ownership seen as illegitimate in the eyes of anarchists? But I suppose most people wouldn't see it that way and just proclaim the government owns it.