Quick hypothetical situation:
Let's say Wal-Mart wants to open up in a small town with a historic old town. Many residents feel the character of the place would be altered in a negative way by Wal-Mart, and that the jobs created would not be, quote, "good jobs". So some people raise their concerns to the point where the town puts it to a vote. A majority votes against the Wal-Mart.
Should the right of Wal-Mart (and of the commercial real estate company with whom they have presumably made an agreement) to do what they want with their property trump the democratic rights of the community to reject the Wal-Mart?
If so, why? Why are property rights paramount over democratic rights/community control in this case, or in general?
If a place can open up and thrive in a land - the place is correct. If the relevant people are so concerned and have real power to over turn what the store front wishes, that is the law. The law reflects relevant power and action - it does not define it.
Likewise markets are a process and a consequence of real human action...to think in the type of "utilitarian" terms in what you are thinking of is to call the "market" or society a "thing; I think this is something Mises may call "the mystic commune"
Democracy has little to do with it (or anything else for that matter); just real action , expectations, and how people relate to them. Wants, desires, should's/ oughts, etc are of no concern
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
JimmyJazz:Should the right of Wal-Mart (and of the commercial real estate company with whom they have presumably made an agreement) to do what they want with their property trump the democratic rights of the community to reject the Wal-Mart? If so, why? Why are property rights paramount over democratic rights/community control in this case, or in general?
Yes. Because "democratic rights" is a made-up concept. It implies the existence of an abstract entity, town or country, whos residents somehow own that area of earth and get get to tell other people how to live or whether they may enter. These decisions need to be enforced, meaning that somebody has to initiate force against nonviolent people.
"Yes. Because "democratic rights" is a made-up concept. It implies the existence of an abstract entity, town or country, whos residents somehow own that area of earth and get get to tell other people how to live or whether they may enter. These decisions need to be enforced, meaning that somebody has to initiate force against nonviolent people."
And private property rights aren't a "made-up concept"? In other words, private property rights have been evident to all people and have prevailed in all societies which ever existed? Were communalistic, tribal societies simply "wrong" in their rejection of private property rights, in the same sense that they were "wrong" about geocentricity or animism? Do private property rights exist apart from some entity which can enforce the respect of private property rights (and of contracts made by the holders of those rights)? Do private property rights not need to be enforced by someone/something?
These aren't hypothetical questions, there are just a lot of them because I couldn't choose which ones I most wanted to ask. Answer whatever ones you like.
Yes, because as you said, it's their property. Those people are free to express their displeasure with the Wal-Mart, but have no more right to force its owners to close its doors than the Wal-Mart does to uproot the townies from their property.
If the people of this hypothetical town really want to oust Wal-Mart, then they can opt not to do any of their shopping there. If it gets no business, the Wal-Mart will operate at a loss, and will be forced to close its doors. On the other hand, if it does well, then it must be satisfying demand, and, presumably, is valued by the community. Basically, they can vote with how they spend their money. It's in this sense that Mises referred to the marketplace as a "consumers' democracy."
And private property rights aren't a "made-up concept"?
Indeed, the concept of some idealistic and abstract notion of "private property" or "rights" is made up. The imperative to act, the market process, and the consequences of actions are not.
Were communalistic, tribal societies simply "wrong" in their rejection of private property rights, in the same sense that they were "wrong" about geocentricity or animism?
Only in the sense that they would not be considered progressed enough to identify and utilize a more clear and correct locus of control that manipulates actual facual reality.
Gman1944, I didn't say anything about forcing a Wal-Mart to close its doors. Also, I'm not sure you've added anything by putting the phrase "their property" in italics. Why is it their property? Does nature grant them the right to "own" and exclusively dispose of their property? Or do people acquire/accumulate property through a series of mutual exchanges (contracts) which were only made possible through a social agreement that such mutual agreements are valid and will be enforced with the weight of society at large (usually, through the state)? Again, what about traditional communal societies which did not recognize the right of two individuals within the group to make mutual exchanges absent the consent of the entire group or at least a majority of the group? Did private property rights not exist in such societies? Did they exist, but they were being actively suppressed/denied? If private property rights were not in operation in such a society, then in what sense did they exist at all? To me, this train of thought is one of many which demonstrates that private property is a socially created institution and not a naturally-existing right (I don't see any reason to believe in natural rights at all, but I am not a philosopher).
Property rights are coherent and workable. For your example and for any other possible example it is possible to determine the clear answer to a question like yours. Democratic rights are never clear, however, but are always arbitrary. For example the first question is how far do you extend the franchise? The whole town, the whole county, a whole region, just the relevant quarter of the town? Do you include old people, underage people, temporary renters, long term renters, recent arrivals? Do you take votes by number of residents, or by household? Do you weight the vote by status of the voter? None of these questions have an obvious answer. If the outcome of the vote is going to be the same regardless this isn't necessarily a problem, but what if the outcome of the vote depends on these parametres? At least in some situations it certainly will. Thus democratic rights are unable to provide a single answer to every concievable scenario. In fact almost always they will provide more than one answer, so that they in fact resolve nothing. Imagine for example mister Martinez who lives in an Anglo-Saxon-majority town, inside a Mexican-majority county. Lets say mr. Martinez wishes to secede with his property. If his right to secede is given to a vote inside his town the result may be against allowing him secession, but if it is taken in the whole county the result may be favorable for him. So what does the democratic principle say in this scenario, does Mr. Martinez has the right to secede or not? As long as you are going to have rules, that is the rule of law, you can only have rules based on private property. Everything else is strongarming of one sort or the other.
Marko, interesting post and I agree with your first paragraph. The decision as to who gets a vote in democracy seems rather arbitrary. Many unecessary wars have been waged over which land/persons belong to which political community.
Still, I'm not sure that this complication about defining the boundaries of political communities changes the fundamental question of whether private property rights can or should entirely supplant the ideas of political communities, citizenship, democracy.
There is bound to be some wrangling over who gets a voice in the Wal-Mart decision. (The wranging may be a matter that was already resolved in the past when a town, city, or district line was drawn. Nonetheless, such decisions had to be made as a prerequisite to the vote on Wal-Mart, so I do concede that the decision about the borders of the political community is part and parcel with the decision about Wal-Mart). However, surely you're not asserting that NO ONE besides Wal-Mart and the commercial real estate company is affected by the contract between the two. The answer to the question "Who is directly affected by the agreement between Wal-Mart and the real estate company?" may not be easy, but surely it cannot be "NO ONE besides Wal-Mart and the real estate company"?
JimmyJazz:And private property rights aren't a "made-up concept"? In other words, private property rights have been evident to all people and have prevailed in all societies which ever existed? Were communalistic, tribal societies simply "wrong" in their rejection of private property rights, in the same sense that they were "wrong" about geocentricity or animism? Do private property rights exist apart from some entity which can enforce the respect of private property rights (and of contracts made by the holders of those rights)? Do private property rights not need to be enforced by someone/something? These aren't hypothetical questions, there are just a lot of them because I couldn't choose which ones I most wanted to ask. Answer whatever ones you like.
Sorry, I'm short on time, so this might seem rambly. Feel free to make a reaponse or rephrase the question and I'll check back tomorrow.
Yes, property rights is just as much a made-up concept. (Although I would argue that it emerges naturally, and exists in all human societies, while democracy has to be 'implemented'.) But the point here really was that democracy requires an arbitrary monopoly on force in in an area. Which is evil and arbitrary. To illustrate this, just imagine you declared that your town should hold an election next sunday about whether your neighbor should be thrown out of town. Everybody would just kind of look at you funny, right? Who are you to announce an election? Well, why is it that "the" real election is any more genuine? What if there are a bunch of competing systems, which one would be the real one? Democracy really only appears like a meaningful concept as long as everyone accepts that monopoly on force which happens to be declared into existence in an area. But its really an utterly arbitrary concept, so how can we speak of "democratic rights"?
Property rights require no arbitrary monopoly on force. And yes, I very much reject a national entity enforcing property rights as well. Property rights is people owning stuff and trading for what others own. And if they can't agree on who owns what they find a way to settle disputes through private court. Ownership doesn't imply Nationalism.
Emperor, I didn't find that rambly I found it thought-provoking. I have to admit I didn't expect someone on this site to acknowledge the socially "made-up" nature of private property rights, even in a limited sense.
I would certainly like you to elaborate on the difference between private property rights "emerging naturally" and democracy needing to be "implemented", as the difference is by no means clear to me.
Also, you said: "Property rights require no arbitrary monopoly on force. And yes, I very much reject a national entity enforcing property rights as well. Property rights is people owning stuff and trading for what others own. And if they can't agree on who owns what they find a way to settle disputes through private court, it doesn't require a monopoly on force enforcing property rights."
I have two questions about this:
-Why would anyone respect the authority of a private court if it had no recourse to force? If it comes to a court case, it's clear there's already a sharp disagreement between the parties involved. Why would the "loser" in this arbitration-by-private-court process, is s/he is rational, agree to submit to the outcome? Why wouldn't they either (1) seek out another private court in an attempt to gain a favorable decision, a process that could go on forever, or expedite things and (2) simply say "to hell with private courts"?
-Even in the private court's own view of itself, whence would its "authority" (or "jurisdiction", or whatever you want to call it) derive? (Indeed, going back to my first question, I'm having trouble even coming up with a word for "has the right to arbitrate a dispute between two other parties in a binding way" that doesn't sound like it implies the decision will be backed up by a monopoly of force: "authority", "jurisdiction", etc.,are the words that come to mind.)
JimmyJazz: Also, you said: "Property rights require no arbitrary monopoly on force. And yes, I very much reject a national entity enforcing property rights as well. Property rights is people owning stuff and trading for what others own. And if they can't agree on who owns what they find a way to settle disputes through private court, it doesn't require a monopoly on force enforcing property rights." I have two questions about this: -Why would anyone respect the authority of a private court if it had no recourse to force? If it comes to a court case, it's clear there's already a sharp disagreement between the parties involved. Why would the "loser" in this arbitration-by-private-court process, is s/he is rational, agree to submit to the outcome? Why wouldn't they either (1) seek out another private court in an attempt to gain a favorable decision, a process that could go on forever, or expedite things and (2) simply say "to hell with private courts"? -Even in the private court's own view of itself, whence would its "authority" (or "jurisdiction", or whatever you want to call it) derive? (Indeed, going back to my first question, I'm having trouble even coming up with a word for "has the right to arbitrate a dispute between two other parties in a binding way" that doesn't sound like it implies the decision will be backed up by a monopoly of force: "authority", "jurisdiction", etc.,are the words that come to mind.)
These two posts should get you on the right track:
What Law Is
A Praxeological Account of Law
Bottom line is democratic "rights" are nonsense as they rest on a principle that is no such thing, because it can not fail but contradict itself. You present your Wal-Mart problem in this manner: democratic rights make a case for option A, while property rights make a case for option B. This being the case how can we know which option, A or B, is the right one? Your presentation of the problem is false. "Democratic rights" do not in fact make a case for option A, they make a case for options A and B at the same time. If the franchise in your poll is expanded to a sufficient number of potential Wal-Mart employees and customers in neighbouring towns (who are obviously affected by the construction) the vote must succeed. If however, a sufficient number of lovers of historic architecture (who are also affected) are invited to take part in the poll the vote will fail. So shall we believe rights are granted by successful gerrymandering? Organize a poll under such parametres and you have rights, organize it under different parametres and you do not?
The answer to the question "Who is directly affected by the agreement between Wal-Mart and the real estate company?" may not be easy, but surely it cannot be "NO ONE besides Wal-Mart and the real estate company"?
It isn't just a question that is not easy, it is a question that is impossible. Anyone may be affected. A person from India who doesn't even know jet that twenty years from now he will emigrate to this town will be affected. A person from China whose goods are sold in Wal-Mart may be affected. A person in Switzerland who would have recieved a postcard with the picture of the historic town centre from his niece will be affected. It is impossible to grant franchize in a non-arbitrary manner. What is arbitrary is not principled. "Democratic rights" rest on arbitrary polls, rather than coherent principle. You can't make coherent, principled, self-referencing law from that.
Thanks for your reply, Marko.
"It isn't just a question that is not easy, it is a question that is impossible."
The assertion that the question of who may participate in a political community is "impossible" is plainly false, as many democracies have existed and continue to exist. Evidently they've found some solution to the problem which many people consider acceptable, even if you do not.
"It is impossible to grant franchize in a non-arbitrary manner. What is arbitrary is not principled."
Whether the solution to the problem of extending franchise is "principled" or not depends, I suppose, on what principles you are willing to recognize as valid. The criterion ("principle" if you prefer) which most democracies have settled on, going back to ancient Athens, is that of residency within a specific geographic area.
It is not going to convince anyone if you merely assert that the illegitimacy of the territorial residency principle is self-evident. Many people believe in democracy, so you'll have to make your case convincingly. At least, that is, if you wish to win anyone over to your way of thinking.
By the way, I think several different issues might be getting confused in this discussion. One is the concept of democracy per se, the other is modern democratic nation-states.
On the one hand, there is the right of people to freely form collective associations, within and through which they may regulate each other's behavior in a democratic fashion. They could also make this political association correspond to a geographic area, as by collectively purchasing some land. To me, it would be obviously tyrranical to deny people the right to freely form such associations.
Then on the other hand, there are modern nation-states, which are usually characterized by birthright citizenship, and a lack of any mechanism for individual secession from the political association (short of geographic relocation).
Would anyone here object to the former kind of democracy, we can call it "free association democracy" or "opt-in/opt-out democracy"? I am sure that most of the anarchists would not object to this, but I am unsure about the minarchists and other libertarians. I wonder if some of you might believe that democracy per se is illegitimate and that the minarchist state you call for should not allow such things to exist.
As for the latter kind of democracy, I have a thought experiment. Let's say that the U.S.A. was going to adopt a constitutional amendment decreeing that any citizen could renounce citizenship and secede from the U.S. political system. (One can do so now, but only by geographic relocation, and usually only by moving to another nation-state with a relatively similar political system). Let's say that this constitutional amendment was ready to be passed, and the only obstacle to moving forward was the need of resolving the debate over what land and possessions people were allowed to take with them when they seceded. The easy answer is, "their" land and possessions. But the more difficult answer must take into account the question: do one's possessions "count" if they were acquired through the politico-legal system of a modern democratic state? Do possessions acquired while we are not in, to borrow a libertarian phrase, "the natural order", qualify as legitimately acquired possessions? If so, why? And if not, how would you suggest deciding what land/possessions an individual secessionist could take with him/her out of the political association from which s/he was seceding? How could one decide this in, as Marko says, a "principled" way?
Obviously, I'm asking this question of the hardcore libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists...your run-of-the-mill, "let's trim the government fat", LP-card-carrying libertarian would not be seriously troubled by these issues. But I am, and I am assuming some posters here will be as well.
Jimmy, I think you will find this new short book extremely useful and relevant for your predicament:
"Beyond Democracy" ($0.99 on Kindle)
Here's an interview with one of the co-authors (Dutch, no less).
JimmyJazz:But the more difficult answer must take into account the question: do one's possessions "count" if they were acquired through the politico-legal system of a modern democratic state?
Who is doing the "counting"?
That's kind of my question, z1235. Do you have an answer (that is more than five words long)?
Can you prove that I have in my possession anything that rightfully belongs to you?
JimmyJazz: Quick hypothetical situation: Let's say Wal-Mart wants to open up in a small town with a historic old town. Many residents feel the character of the place would be altered in a negative way by Wal-Mart, and that the jobs created would not be, quote, "good jobs". So some people raise their concerns to the point where the town puts it to a vote. A majority votes against the Wal-Mart. Should the right of Wal-Mart (and of the commercial real estate company with whom they have presumably made an agreement) to do what they want with their property trump the democratic rights of the community to reject the Wal-Mart? If so, why? Why are property rights paramount over democratic rights/community control in this case, or in general?
The "good jobs" thing cannot be helped. Like people have mentioned before, only individuals have rights and no two individuals can have legitimately conflicting rights. Because of this we cannot say that property rights "trump" some other rights. Assuming A has a property right, all that means is that B does not have the right to conflict with the use of A's property, unless A conflicts with B's use of his. In your example, either Walmart (i.e. Walmart's shareholders) have the right to hire whoever they want, or some individual (Joe) has the right to demand that all employees that are hired in the town get "good jobs", you cannot have both.
Walmart's right to hire does not conflict with Joe's use of his property, his body or his freedom. You should reject the notion that the effect of a potential fall in Joe's salary due to Walmart's hiring policies is legitimate reason for denying Walmart the right to do as it pleases with its property. If you are consistent and do not reject this, then you will have to accept that I can demand that my wage never falls below its current value, and thus I can demand retribution from any economic agent to make this happen, since they are all affecting my wage to some extent.
The slippery slope is that this reasoning leads to the abolition of all rights, even the right to demand "good jobs". Hence it cannot be a consistent position. QED
Something that I thought briefly in this case is to argue that the individuals in the historic old town have homesteaded the "historical look" of the old town. If that is true, then Walmart can be restricted to actions that do not restroy this "historical look". Although, this implies an absurdly limited notion of property rights. All torts must be confined to physical intrusion into property, otherwise you get the slippery slope again.
JimmyJazz:Should the right of Wal-Mart (and of the commercial real estate company with whom they have presumably made an agreement) to do what they want with their property trump the democratic rights of the community to reject the Wal-Mart?
What "democratic rights of the community" are there?
JimmyJazz:If so, why? Why are property rights paramount over democratic rights/community control in this case, or in general?
I don't think there are any democratic rights/community control.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
You mean collectivism? It's dangerous because it can easily violate an individual's freedom and liberty.
I'm technically an indivdualist. The individual is supreme, not the group.
I mean I don't see "the town" as a single piece of property collectively owned by "its inhabitants".