I have two questions: one general and one specific. Both questions are asked from natural rights perspective, not economics perspective.
1. In the exchange with Bryan Caplan on fractional-reserve banking, Walter Block argued quite strongly that under libertarian rights, there is no such thing as joint ownership. My question is: a) does everyone in the libertarian community agree with him? b) why does that make sense?
For instance:
Caplan: You're just being difficult, Walter. If you asked a married couple "Who owns your car?" many people would say "We both own it. Fully." You can either berate them for self-contradiction, or interpret their statement charitably through the usual lens of marital property. Block: It is merely "vague" when two different people have full property rights over the same identical thing? I don't think so. Look, you and I can both be PART owners of a car: you use it on odd days, me on even ones. But we both (logically) cannot be FULL owners of one and the same car. That is a logical contradiction, an utter impossibility.
Caplan:
You're just being difficult, Walter. If you asked a married couple "Who owns your car?" many people would say "We both own it. Fully." You can either berate them for self-contradiction, or interpret their statement charitably through the usual lens of marital property.
Block:
It is merely "vague" when two different people have full property rights over the same identical thing? I don't think so. Look, you and I can both be PART owners of a car: you use it on odd days, me on even ones. But we both (logically) cannot be FULL owners of one and the same car. That is a logical contradiction, an utter impossibility.
But why can't two people be full owners? If ownership = ability to deny others use of the property, then both are in a position of a denier.
It seems like the wife should be able to deny the husband to make any alterations to the car that she doesn't agree with. For instance, if the wife is an anarchist, and the husband is a minarchist, she should be able to veto his adding a "Ron Paul 2012" bumper sticker to the car. If the husband did that without her permission, arguing that "it was his turn to own a car", that would be very strange.
Also, what about parenthood? Isn't that a case of joint ownership (or parental rights)? What about a corporation?
2. Specific question:
If we assume that joint ownership (in some form) is ok, then imagine the following scenario:
A group of people leaves main civilization and settles on an uninhabited island (or creates a colony on a different planet). They create a corporation called New Earth. Each member owns the piece of property he homesteaded and his own stuff (e.g., clothes, tools, etc.), but the corporation, of which each settler is a member, owns some land: e.g., the land between the houses (the "road"), the wall that encircles the settlement, etc. The members decide how to create a governing board for the corporation: maybe they will elect a CEO whose position will be passed down to his children, or maybe they will elect a board whose membership will change every few years.
Would there be a problem with such a setup from natural rights point of view?
Next, imagine the same scenario, but in this case, the members decided that the corporation owns everything: including the people themselves (i.e., they sold themselves to slavery to the corporation), their clothes, their houses, etc. I.e., all member cast all their possessions in a common pot.
Then the corporation votes that for economic reasons, it makes sense to re-institute the idea of private property. In the sense that everyone still gets "rights" (granted by the corporation) for everything he owned before the "casting in the common pot" event, and people may not steal from each other, etc.
So, this colony behaves in a way identical to the first colony, with one exception: when the whole corporation (or its CEO or the governing board) decides that, for instance, all houses in the colony must be painted blue, then all the members must comply, since they don't really own the houses. If the corporation decides that a house must be destroyed to build a granary, the owner of the house must comply, since the corporation owns the house.
Again: would such a situation be problematic from natural rights point of view?
A friend of mine claims that the second scenario is what a society is. The whole society owns all the land and everything on it, but for utilitarian/economic reasons, a particular society may agree to people having "rights", but such rights are not natural rights, they are rights granted by the society to individuals to avoid the tragedy of the commons, the calculation problem, etc., etc. But, if the society decides to exercise eminent domain over someone's "property", it may.
Besides the problem from historic point of view (i.e., we have to point to a moment at which the "casting into the pot" event happened for a particular community, where every single member agreed to the casting of his own property), I was wondering if there is a problem with such a set up in principle from natural rights morality.
The crux is here, " But we both (logically) cannot be FULL owners of one and the same car. "
EDIT: Maybe I should've highlighted "FULL" originally.
I understand. And my question was: why not? Do you think joint ownership of objects and parenthood rights as practiced by many couples is a legal fiction?
Because 100% plus 100% equals 200%. It wouldn't make any sense for two people to each have 100% ownership over the same thing because 100% ownership means complete ownership.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
FlyingAxe: I understand. And my question was: why not? Do you think joint ownership of objects and parenthood rights as practiced by many couples is a legal fiction?
It's still only partial ownership. In the example of children each parent has their own input into raising the child and has a specific domain over different aspects of the child's activities, etc. A legal fiction? I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I think so yes. As far as the law is concerned when parents are still married the children are considered to "belong" to them together, but this doesn't mean they both have FULL ownership rights.
Mel Brooks provides an excellent analysis of this in this thought experiment.
This.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
@FlyingAxe: Both Caplan and Block are correct because they are each using different senses of the word "to own." The Rothbardian/Hoppean theory of property is based on a very metaphysical conception of the material world being parceled up into lots consisting of definite spatial boundaries. There is a spatial region corresponding to the position of the material that comprises your body and this spatial region is owned by you, it is your property. To deny ownership of your body is to contradict yourself (on this theory of property) because in order to do so, you must take up the space in which your body resides and exert control over the things within that space (e.g. your vocal cords).
Then, we posit the ideas of homesteading and voluntary exchange to enable "conflict-free" extension of property from the originary or inalienable property (your body). In this way, all the things that are rightfully owned came to be owned.
The attempt to extend this theory of property to intangible rights - such as easements, parental rights, children's rights, marriage obligations and so on - becomes ad hoc, in my opinion. This "ad hocness" suggests that there is a fundamental problem with the theory and it is this fundamental problem that Caplan is banging up against: people simply don't use the concept "to own" in the Rothbardian/Hoppean sense. This is strange since ownership is supposed to be part of human nature, so we would expect that the intuitive notion of ownership - sans the influence of State propaganda - should at least roughly correspond with theoretical notion. But the fact is that - without an indefinite list of hoc exceptions - the Rothbardian theory of property is simply incongruous with basic human intuitions regarding property and ownership.
I didn't look at the larger point that Block and Caplan were arguing but I would simply make the following two points:
1) Control of rights must always be exclusive in order to be efficient and amenable to the settlement of disputes. A settlement that specifies a set of rights in which multiple parties have equal, controlling interests in the very same resources (property) is a self-defeating way to settle a dispute. Ultimately, the terms of such a settlement have been left vague.
2) However, such a "vague" settlement could simply be an efficient way of spelling out the terms of a settlement where the social norms regarding decisions in such resources are sufficiently well-known and binding as to obviate the need for further specification (as in sharing the marital minivan).
So, on point (1), Block is right. On point (2), Caplan is right.
Clayton -
Porco Rosso: In the example of children each parent has their own input into raising the child and has a specific domain over different aspects of the child's activities, etc.
That's not true. Both parents decide equally on each issue (one some issues a parent may give the other full authority willingly, simply because he doesn't care and trusts the other parent's expertise, but he may always take it back). For instance, it's not the case that the mom decides what vaccination shots the kid gets, while the dad decides which vitamins he will take. Both decide on both, and before they go forth, they need to reach a consensus.
Daniel Muffinburg: Because 100% plus 100% equals 200%. It wouldn't make any sense for two people to each have 100% ownership over the same thing because 100% ownership means complete ownership.
First of all, that's the case when ownership is exclusive or scarce. That's immediate ownership. I agree that each person cannot be using his article immediately as much as the other person. But in terms of ownership of a claim, there is no scarcity. Just like I can use an idea 100% and you can use an idea 100%, and that doesn't add up to 200%.
I think arguing 50% vs. 100% is semantics. If my wife and I jointly own a car, we jointly own every single molecule of the car. Whether that means we each own 100% of the molecule or each owns 50% of the molecule... who cares? I may not sell the car and give my wife half the value without her consent. I may not change some part of the car without her consent. In theory, she could deny me the usage of the car in a way that she does not approve of and vice versa.
Also: if three people own a car, the same way, the two people cannot gang up on the third person and force upon him a decision of what to do with the car (arguing that both of them have 66.6% of the ownership, while he only has 33.3%). He has a power of veto. (Of course, in a situation when it's either-or, the majority wins. But in a case of disturbance of status quo, the status quo can be forced by a single vote.)
Clayton: Control of rights must always be exclusive in order to be efficient and amenable to the settlement of disputes. A settlement that specifies a set of rights in which multiple parties have equal, controlling interests in the very same resources (property) is a self-defeating way to settle a dispute.
That may be true, but situations oftentimes arise, when pooling together resources is necessary for a project to go on. And the parties contributing resources expect to have equal control of the project.
FlyingAxe: That may be true, but situations oftentimes arise, when pooling together resources is necessary for a project to go on. And the parties contributing resources expect to have equal control of the project.
"Equal control" does not mean "equal full control". They cannot both have full control at the same time. If someone has full control, then he has the final say about it. They cannot both have the final say. That is the contradiction.
Well, the final say on the matter must come from them as a team. I suppose you could say that it must consist of their equal input (unless one of them declared that he agrees a priori with whatever the other says on the matter).
I mean: if we define ownership as being able to prevent others from using an item, and three people own a pool, one person decides he doesn't want it to be open on Sundays, and the other two think it should be open on Sunday, what does the natural law say we should do? Can the first person keep 33% of the pool closed on Sunday? Can he force the others to keep the whole pool closed? Can they force him to keep the whole pool open? (In that case, what happened to his natural rights to the pool?)
FlyingAxe: Well, the final say on the matter must come from them as a team. I suppose you could say that it must consist of their equal input (unless one of them declared that he agrees a priori with whatever the other says on the matter).
Equal input is irrelevant to the point Block was making. He even stated that people can be part owners. His point was that it is not possible for their to be more than one full owner. There can be many part owners, but there cannot be more than one full owner. That was exactly what Block said.
FlyingAxe: I mean: if we define ownership as being able to prevent others from using an item, and three people own a pool, one person decides he doesn't want it to be open on Sundays, and the other two think it should be open on Sunday, what does the natural law say we should do? Can the first person keep 33% of the pool closed on Sunday? Can he force the others to keep the whole pool closed? Can they force him to keep the whole pool open? (In that case, what happened to his natural rights to the pool?)
I have no idea what would be consistent with natural law. This is the kind of nuance where social norms are useful. I would hope that before any 3 people (or any amount for that matter) go into business together or buy property together, that they would sort out the contractual obligations before they make the final purchase. Not doing so is just asking for trouble.
FlyingAxe:[...] I think arguing 50% vs. 100% is semantics. [...] who cares? [...]
FlyingAxe:But why can't two people be full owners? If ownership = ability to deny others use of the property, then both are in a position of a denier. It seems like the wife should be able to deny the husband to make any alterations to the car that she doesn't agree with. For instance, if the wife is an anarchist, and the husband is a minarchist, she should be able to veto his adding a "Ron Paul 2012" bumper sticker to the car. If the husband did that without her permission, arguing that "it was his turn to own a car", that would be very strange.
Despite the nonsensical nature of your example (I'm not sure what their difference in political philosophy has to do with her having the ability to prevent him from putting a sticker on the car), it doesn't make sense to say they are both "full owners."
"Joint ownership" does not imply "joint FULL ownership." Indeed, what happens during a divorce? If they each have FULL ownership, why does one person keep 100% of the car, and the other gets 0%? Or, perhaps the car gets sold and they each get 50% of the proceeds? If they are both FULL owners, should they not each get FULL value for the car?
Same as above.
Specific question: Would there be a problem with such a setup from natural rights point of view?
I don't see how.
Next, imagine the same scenario, but in this case, the members decided that the corporation owns everything: including the people themselves [...]
Impossible. You're asserting that the collective owns the individual. See here (and the link for "these resources" as well) for an explanation of "inalienable rights" and why you cannot give up your ownership of yourself.
Absolutely. Everything would come to a halt, quite literally, because no one would be able to even breath without getting permission from everyone else to do so...which of course, they would not be able to grant such permission because they themselves would require permission from everyone else to be able to move their mouth and communicate that they grant such permission. So basically everyone would all die out in a matter of minutes from asphyxiation. (Although the more realistic scenario is that no one would abide by such a ridiculous arrangment.)
A friend of mine claims that the second scenario is what a society is.
As explained above, obviously your friend couldn't be more wrong.
Despite the nonsensical nature of your example (I'm not sure what their difference in political philosophy has to do with her having the ability to prevent him from putting a sticker on the car)
I was giving a humorous explanation of why they’d disagree. Sorry you didn’t get the joke.
Or, perhaps the car gets sold and they each get 50% of the proceeds? If they are both FULL owners, should they not each get FULL value for the car?
Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned. But I already agreed that you can say that they own 50% of each molecule of the car. Practically, it makes no difference and raises the same questions. (E.g., if three people own a car, can two people compel the third person to do something with it? Does the third person always have a power of veto?)
If I have an inalienable right to my body, how come I can sell my kidney? Wouldn’t that be an alienation? Also, I have heard libertarians argue that one can sell oneself to slavery.
Anyway, we don’t have to include a scenario that includes ownership of bodies. Barring that aspect, is there a natural-rights problem with the community (corporation) owning all objects in the community besides the bodies after people have given them up to the corporation?
Also, I have another question. From what I understand, the concept of rights and the concept of law are ought concepts, not is concepts.
Imagine a system in which the society owns everything in principle, but in practice, it allows people to keep their "property" (i.e., whatever a person "homesteaded" by following whatever rules one would follow in a free society). The only difference is: the society exercises the right to eminent domain. I.e., basically, it’s the second model I described in my post, but instead of arriving to it from a natural rights perspective, we build it a priori.
From strictly legal (i.e., non-utilitarian) perspective, why ought not such system of rights exist? If we say that the purpose of the law is to resolve conflict of claims, then even in such a system, the conflicts are resolved easily: the rule is that whatever you’ve homesteaded belongs to you, but whenever the society in which you live wants to revoke that ownership for the communal use (or to redistribute the property), it can. Strictly in terms of conflict resolution, such a system doesn’t seem to contradict the purpose of law. Where is the problem?
FlyingAxe:I was giving a humorous explanation of why they’d disagree. Sorry you didn’t get the joke.
Oh. You're saying an anarchist wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because an anarchist wouldn't vote. Lot of people around here would disagree.
Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned.
What? When did full ownership get "dissolved"? Why the hell would you do that? When was the last time you "dissolved" your full ownership of something?
But I already agreed that you can say that they own 50% of each molecule of the car.
Why not 50% of each atom?
Practically, it makes no difference and raises the same questions.
(E.g., if three people own a car, can two people compel the third person to do something with it? Does the third person always have a power of veto?)
Depends on the nature of their joint agreement...and what exactly the two people did with the car. One of the main issues is whether the physical integrity of the property has been altered in some way.
FlyingAxe:If I have an inalienable right to my body, how come I can sell my kidney? Wouldn’t that be an alienation?
Your kidney is not your body. Once an organ is removed from your person, it is no longer part of your body anymore...is it.
Again, please see here, here, and here.
Also, I have heard libertarians argue that one can sell oneself to slavery.
I've also heard self-proclaimed libertarians argue that property is exploitative and immoral. That doesn't make them right.
Barring that aspect, is there a natural-rights problem with the community (corporation) owning all objects in the community besides the bodies after people have given them up to the corporation?
You can contract in anything that is alieanable property. I don't see where natural rights would conflict with such a contract.
but instead of arriving to it from a natural rights perspective, we build it a priori.
I'm not exactly sure how you do that, but okay.
From strictly legal (i.e., non-utilitarian) perspective, why ought not such system of rights exist?
Because it is illogical and inconsistant. Again, please see here (and for more, here.)
If we say that the purpose of the law is to resolve conflict of claims
I would argue law is more important in avoiding conflicts...the "resolving them as they arrise" part is secondary.
FlyingAxe:the rule is that whatever you’ve homesteaded belongs to you, but whenever the society in which you live wants to revoke that ownership for the communal use (or to redistribute the property), it can.
So basically, whatever the majority says, goes. He who has the might makes the law. Mob rule. Yeah that's always been a great recipe for avoiding conflict, as well as resolving it.
Strictly in terms of conflict resolution, such a system doesn’t seem to contradict the purpose of law. Where is the problem?
If you want to break it down that way, we could argue that anytime there is a conflict, the law says whoever dies first loses. That's a pretty easy method of conflict resolution too. If you have a disagreement with someone, just shoot them. Problem solved. Conflict resolved. Sure would save a lot of time and money on judges, and arbitrators, and investigators, and all that other gobbledygook that comes with this overly complicated system of law you're talking about where people have to get together and vote on things.
I dissolved my full ownership of an item every time I threw something in the garbage. I.e., I told the world: "It used to be that I could restrict others' use of this item. That's no longer the case. I give up that right."
Also: I used to co-own a car with my mom. Both our names were on the title. A few days ago, my wife and I bought a new car for ourselves. I removed my name from my mom's title. Now only she can restrict others' use of the car; I can't.
Because a molecule is the smalled unit of substance. But you can go all the way down to a string. Or all the way up to the smallest chunk of the car that would matter. A mole. Whatever. The point is: If I co-own a car with my wife, it's not that I own it at some times, but she owns it at others, or I own the front of the car, and she owns the back of it.
If you define ownership as:
1) right to restrict others' use of an item (I believe this is a better definition, since it differentiates between owned objects and ownerless ones) -- and/or: 2) right to use the item,
then both of use have this right. We have 100% of this right in the sense that either of us can at any time restrict a third party's use of the car and either of use has at any time the right to use the car. Now, how we share the car is another question. It's probably the case that we have veto power regarding each other as well. (Which is another reason why I believe that the first definition of ownership is more correct.) I don't know what happens when three people co-own a car from natural rights point of view. Can two people force a third as to what they can do with the car? Does the third person always have a power of veto? A number of answers above said: "The better have specified that in a contract." But that would be a case of contractual rights, not natural rights.
The relevance of the last point has to do with a situation when things are co-owned in a corporation. Can the majority force the minority to a decision? Or does it need to ask the minority's permission every single time?
and what exactly the two people did with the car. One of the main issues is whether the physical integrity of the property has been altered in some way.
They want to put a sticker on the car, but the third person doesn't want to. They want to change the muffler at a private mechanic, but the third person wants to change it at a dealership. They want to take the car to the mountains for a trip, but the third person needs it to drive to work.
I haven't had a chance to listen to all of Hoppe's talk yet. I am hoping to finish it soon. But here is my question so far:
Hoppe's argument is based (among other things) on universability. We shouldn't make ethical rules that favor one group of people over another. Questions:
1) Why not? If ethics is an ought system, and we believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society, why shouldn't we? Also: if the purpose of the law is to resolve a conflict or to prevent a conflict from happening, then a descriminatory rule adopted by a society would be as clear. For instance: in any dispute between a man and a woman, the man wins. That's very clear.
I agree that this sounds absurd. As do the mob rule or "might makes right" rule that you have used as ad absurdums in your response. I agree that they do not jive well with my inner sense of justice (which is not to say that that means anything). But that's the evidence against the idea that resolving/preventing conflict in a clear way is the only purpose of the law. There must be something else to it.
2) Don't we use non-universal rules in natural or common law anyway? For instance, the person who finds an object first owns it. That descriminates against those who did not find the object. Also, there could be a common law rule that when two people come to an intersection, the first person who arrived has the right of way (assuming we live in a society where roads are common). But in Russia, if I am not mistaken, the rule is that the person to the right or who is turning right has the right of way. Both rules seems somewhat arbitrary.
OK, so imagine that we are trying to create rules of common road use for our Earth II colony. The goal of the rules is to avoid conflicts on the road. The rule says that whoever is driving on the road has a right to continue driving, no matter what the size or quality of his car. I.e., a guy in a Ford does not have to give way to a guy in a Mercedes. When both come to a stop sign, whoever came first has the right of way, etc.
But, there is an exception to the rule. Whenever there is a vehicle hired by Earth II that responds to an emergency (a police vehicle, a fire-fighter vehicle, or an ambulance) on the road, and its sirens are on, it gets the right of way. All the vehicles in front of it have to pull to the right and let it pass.
This rule is very clear. It is arbitrary, but so what? It works well to avoid conflict. If I am trying to decide whether I have a right of way vs. a Mercedes, one set of very clear rules applies; if I am trying to decide whether I have a right of way vs. an ambulance with sirens on, another very clear set of rules applies.
The same way you can say: If a "private" individual wants to take away my house, natural rights rule applies (if I homesteaded it first, he violates the law, and I have a right to defend my property), but if the government wants to take my house away, another set of rules applies. The set of rules is clear, and according to Clayton's definition of the law, it passes. But since our inner sense of justice revolts against such an concept, there must be more to the law than just "creating a clear set of rules to prevent/resolve conflict".
@FlyingAxe
I suggest you read my post above, as many of the questions you are posing to JJ I have already answered with that short post.
gotlucky wrote: Equal input is irrelevant to the point Block was making. He even stated that people can be part owners. His point was that it is not possible for their to be more than one full owner. There can be many part owners, but there cannot be more than one full owner. That was exactly what Block said.
Well, I don't know what part ownership means. If ownership = right to restrict others' use of an item, then what does it mean that I have 50% of this right? I understand if I have 100% of the right, and another person also has 100% of this right. So, let's see, if my wife and I own an object and Joe doesn't:
1) I have a right to use the object and have a right to restrict others' use of it (including my wife's) 2) My wife has a right to use the object and has a right to restrict others' use of it (including mine) 3) Joe has no right to use the object and has no right to restrict others' use of it.
Well, all things being equal, social norms may be helpful (for instance, social norms might say that two people's right to use of the object trumps the third person's right to restrict use of it), but it could be the case that social norms would violate people's natural rights.
Also, I agree that it would be smart to create a contract, but that would be the case of contractual law, not natural law.
Also, I just want to point out that I am not discussing what Walter Block said specifically about fractional reserve banking. I am talking in general about the impossibility of full joint ownership. I haven't thought about how this applies to fractional reserve banking and co-ownership of the same sum of money.
I actually linked to the wrong post, sorry. This is the one I should have linked to, but here is what I said:
gotlucky: "Equal control" does not mean "equal full control". They cannot both have full control at the same time. If someone has full control, then he has the final say about it. They cannot both have the final say. That is the contradiction.
FlyingAxe: Well, all things being equal, social norms may be helpful (for instance, social norms might say that two people's right to use of the object trumps the third person's right to restrict use of it), but it could be the case that social norms would violate people's natural rights. Also, I agree that it would be smart to create a contract, but that would be the case of contractual law, not natural law.
Natural law is not the end all, be all of law. Like I said, if people don't have the brains to sort out potential conflicts beforehand, they are just asking for trouble. Social norms can help sort out the issue if people didn't take the time to sort it out beforehand, but natural law will get you nowhere.
The bank owns all money deposited with it. Depositors have a personal claim on 'their' money that can be ceded.
FlyingAxe:I dissolved my full ownership of an item every time I threw something in the garbage. I.e., I told the world: "It used to be that I could restrict others' use of this item. That's no longer the case. I give up that right."
When I said "dissolved full ownership" I was talking about in the type of case where you eliminate "full" ownership and end up with "half" ownership...like the example currently in discussion. If you recall, that comment was in direct response to your statment: "Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned."
My question to you is, when was the last time you had "full ownership" of something and then dropped your ownership to half?
What's the point of this story?
The point is: If I co-own a car with my wife, it's not that I own it at some times, but she owns it at others, or I own the front of the car, and she owns the back of it.
The funny thing is, that sounds exactly like what you're describing. Because that is actually closer to a situation in which you could both have "full ownership" of the vehicle.
Again, two people cannot logically have "full ownership" of the same thing at the same time. That doesn't make sense. It's like saying you're only partially pregnant.
We have 100% of this right in the sense that either of us can at any time restrict a third party's use of the car and either of use has at any time the right to use the car.
Bingo. You can't restrict everyone, can you. You do not have 100% of this right because neither you nor she can prevent the other access to the property. You CANNOT prevent 100% of people from use of the car. Ergo, your rights to the car are limited...as in, not "full" and 100%.
But that would be a case of contractual rights, not natural rights.
So?
Again, it depends how the corporation is setup. It depends on what the agreements are. I'm sorry that contractual agreements are for some reason not good enough for you, but that's the way it is.
I have no idea why it's so important to you that a thousand people be able to all be said to have "full ownership" of the same property at the same time, and that any sort of conflict avoidanc with regard to this arrangement be derived solely from "natural rights".
Hoppe's argument is based (among other things) on universability. We shouldn't make ethical rules that favor one group of people over another. Questions: 1) Why not?
1) Why not?
If you scroll down from that post, you'll see where I asked the same question presented my own issues with Hoppe's argumentation ethics here. As far as I can tell, you have to presuppose (i.e. assume) an interest in and goal of conflict avoidance.
If ethics is an ought system, and we believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society, why shouldn't we?
Do you believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society?
And besides...I don't think Hoppe ever said anything about the goal being "a better society". That is a subjective value judgement. I'm pretty sure his goal was conflict avoidance and resolution.
Also: if the purpose of the law is to resolve a conflict or to prevent a conflict from happening, then a descriminatory rule adopted by a society would be as clear. For instance: in any dispute between a man and a woman, the man wins. That's very clear.
"Clarity" is not conflict resolution. I have no idea why you think "clarity" would be a sufficient case for that.
So basically, you're saying if you have to take something down to its logical conclusions to show how absurd it is, then "there must be something else to it"...because logic (and apparently your own gut feeling) is just not enough.
Don't we use non-universal rules in natural or common law anyway? For instance, the person who finds an object first owns it. That descriminates against those who did not find the object.
You cannot be serious.
If you are, take it down to its logical conclusion. You're basically concluding the Marxist notion that property itself is "exploitative" or "immoral" or whatever other evil thing you want to term it...that essentially property is invalid. That takes us right back to square one. You claiming that you own your body descriminates against those who were not born into your body. Ergo, if we follow universality, you do not own your body. Ergo..."no one would be able to even breath without getting permission from everyone else to do so...which of course, they would not be able to grant such permission because they themselves would require permission from everyone else to be able to move their mouth and communicate that they grant such permission. So basically everyone would all die out in a matter of minutes from asphyxiation."
Also, there could be a common law rule that when two people come to an intersection, the first person who arrived has the right of way (assuming we live in a society where roads are common). But in Russia, if I am not mistaken, the rule is that the person to the right or who is turning right has the right of way. Both rules seems somewhat arbitrary.
Maybe they are. But I don't see how it follows that they violate universality. Not to mention, if we're talking about a Stateless society, the property owner makes the rules with regard to his property.
The same way you can say: If a "private" individual wants to take away my house, natural rights rule applies (if I homesteaded it first, he violates the law, and I have a right to defend my property), but if the government wants to take my house away, another set of rules applies. The set of rules is clear, and according to Clayton's definition of the law, it passes.
No, it doesn't. You're comparing apples and pencils. In the "emergency vehicles have right of way" situation, you're talking about a rule set up by a property owner that dictates the use of his property. In the "government can take my house away", you're talking about a mob of people giving themselves the authority to take ownership and control of property that belongs to someone else.
I have no idea how in the world you find those anywhere close to being similar.
OK, I think that makes a lot of sense. In that case, it makes sense to define ownership as rightful control over an object. Restricting others' use to it is a part of control.
John James: You do not have 100% of this right because neither you nor she can prevent the other access to the property.
Actually, we can. If I don't want my wife to use my property in a certain way, she can't, even though it's her property too. And vice versa.
But, I think gotlucky answered my question regarding joint ownership. My question about the legal problem with socialism remains.
That is because you apparently don't understand why I brought the Earth II example and asked the question about joint ownership. I am trying to figure out what exactly is the legal problem with socialism. (I already know what the economic problem is.) I.e., I am trying to figure out why joint ownership of all property (barring people's own bodies) would be a bad setup from legal point of view.
No, my but the reasons for my disbelief are economic. In fact, my pseudo-socialist friend also agrees with libertarians about the need for private property due to tragedy of the commons and calculation problem. But he disagrees that the problem with socialism is moral or legal; in his opinion, the problem is only of utilitarian nature.
I was under impression that clarity of boundaries is one of the main requirements for conflict resolution/prevention. (Boundaries in both physical and abstract sense.) So, what is your answer? Why would a pseudo-socialist system be a bad case of conflict resolution/prevention?
For instance, I work in a lab, where all the equipment is owned by the lab owner. At the same time, people are assigned their own stuff, which only they (and not others) can use. For instance, nobody can use my microscope without my permission. But, in reality, the boss owns the microscope, not I. At any moment, he can exercise the right of eminent domain and make someone else a joint user of the microscope. I would have no right to protest.
So, conflict resolution works just fine in this situation. Nobody can use my stuff, unless the boss has decided that he or she can.
Now, you will say: but in this case, the boss owns all the stuff. But you might imagine that we were a corporation and everyone owned all the stuff. Conflict prevention resolution would still work just fine. (Nobody can use my stuff, unless the corporation, or the elected board, votes that he or she can.)
So, I am demonstrating how conflict resolution and prevention would work just fine in a society where everyone owns every item, except one's body. Therefore, from legal (not economic) point of view, why ought not such a legal system exist? (The reason why a system in which even the bodies are owned ought not exist is the one you and Hoppe described: nobody would be able to breath; also, nobody would be able to give each other permission. I.e., such a system would be impossible and self-contradictory. But that's not the case with non-body items.)
The function of reductio ad absurdum is to show that the logic is flawed. It doesn't explain how and why the logic is flawed. It just demonstrates that there is likely a problem with the argument, since it leads to apparently absurd conclusions. I don't need convincing that socialism is unjust. I need to be able to explain to someone using clear arguments why, starting from our definition of what a law is (or ought to be), we can derive logically that socialism is unjust.
And no, gut feeling is not a good argument.
Interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_ownership
FlyingAxe: Actually, we can. If I don't want my wife to use my property in a certain way, she can't, even though it's her property too. And vice versa.
This would seem to mean that it is actually your property and not hers. Could you give an example of what you mean?
FlyingAxe: For instance, I work in a lab, where all the equipment is owned by the lab owner. At the same time, people are assigned their own stuff, which only they (and not others) can use. For instance, nobody can use my microscope without my permission. But, in reality, the boss owns the microscope, not I. At any moment, he can exercise the right of eminent domain and make someone else a joint user of the microscope. I would have no right to protest. So, conflict resolution works just fine in this situation. Nobody can use my stuff, unless the boss has decided that he or she can. Now, you will say: but in this case, the boss owns all the stuff.
Now, you will say: but in this case, the boss owns all the stuff.
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there. In this particular scenario, that is exactly what is happening. The boss owns the stuff (or his boss, or his boss's boss, you get the point). The boss has the final say in how the property gets used. Regarding your use of the term "eminent domain", that is not the correct usage of the term, but I understand what you are trying to say.
FlyingAxe: But you might imagine that we were a corporation and everyone owned all the stuff. Conflict prevention resolution would still work just fine. (Nobody can use my stuff, unless the corporation, or the elected board, votes that he or she can.)
But you might imagine that we were a corporation and everyone owned all the stuff. Conflict prevention resolution would still work just fine. (Nobody can use my stuff, unless the corporation, or the elected board, votes that he or she can.)
Well, this is why contract law is so important. If any number of individuals would like to band together and own some property together, they need to sort out the rules regarding the use of the property before they buy it! Why must it be put to a vote? How many votes are necessary for it to even count? How many votes need to be in favor of or against something for a particular side to win? Does it need a majority or just a plurality? Does every member get to vote or does just the elected board get to vote?
Sure, theoretically, you could get 1,000 people to form a corporation together and all agree to the same rules, but it's really not going to happen in the real world. I've used this analogy in another thread: Theoretically, tomorrow everyone in America could burn all their cash. It's not going to happen.
You might find small groups of people who are willing to enter into these types of contracts together. The most common is that of husband and wife, but even then, most married couples still keep certain items to be their exclusive property.
Another common group of people that do this are business partners. But again, it's rare to find more than 2 people willing to share in a business, and usually even then someone is in charge. It's just really rare to find people willing to partake in such a system. There is just no way that 300 million Americans are going to want to partake in a legal system this complicated. The free market is complex enough.
Can't we just say that any instance of "joint ownership" will necessarily imply partial ownership on the part of each joint owner? I mean, it's not that hard to grasp.
gotlucky: This would seem to mean that it is actually your property and not hers. Could you give an example of what you mean?
As I said, if I want to alter something in the car, and she doesn't want it, she can restrict me from doing it. Or if I want to take it somewhere, but she doesn't approve, she can forbid me to do so. And vice versa: I can similarly restrict her.
That is why, any time two people use something, there must be consensus as to its use. (Of course, one person can always say: "I don't care what you do with this." Or: "You don't need to ask my permission if you want to take the car to X." There may be implicit understanding about such cases.)
gotlucky: Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there. In this particular scenario, that is exactly what is happening. The boss owns the stuff (or his boss, or his boss's boss, you get the point). The boss has the final say in how the property gets used.
Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there. In this particular scenario, that is exactly what is happening. The boss owns the stuff (or his boss, or his boss's boss, you get the point). The boss has the final say in how the property gets used.
As I said, I only used this example to show how conflict resolution could happen even with joint ownership. Therefore, it would not defy the logic and purpose of a legal system.
gotlucky: Well, this is why contract law is so important. If any number of individuals would like to band together and own some property together, they need to sort out the rules regarding the use of the property before they buy it! Why must it be put to a vote? How many votes are necessary for it to even count? How many votes need to be in favor of or against something for a particular side to win? Does it need a majority or just a plurality? Does every member get to vote or does just the elected board get to vote? Sure, theoretically, you could get 1,000 people to form a corporation together and all agree to the same rules, but it's really not going to happen in the real world. I've used this analogy in another thread: Theoretically, tomorrow everyone in America could burn all their cash. It's not going to happen. You might find small groups of people who are willing to enter into these types of contracts together. The most common is that of husband and wife, but even then, most married couples still keep certain items to be their exclusive property. Another common group of people that do this are business partners. But again, it's rare to find more than 2 people willing to share in a business, and usually even then someone is in charge. It's just really rare to find people willing to partake in such a system. There is just no way that 300 million Americans are going to want to partake in a legal system this complicated. The free market is complex enough.
What do you mean? You had a bunch of people living in 1970s (for example -- i.e., sufficiently removed from the revolution, but not yet in the 80s with Perestroika) in the Soviet Union, and many of them believed that there was nothing strange about common ownership of stuff. My mother, for instance, and all her friends, knew that the system was corrupt and knew that a lot of things were wrong economically, but they didn't think that the legal philosophy of common ownership was unjust.
You have today plenty of people in the US supporting the idea of eminent domain, which is based on the concept that the society (represented by the government) owns all the land in the US, and the supposed private ownership of the land by individual entities is merely a grant of usage from the government, subject to reversal at any moment. Certainly, individuals cannot agress against each other's property, but that's because it's not theirs; it's the society's, and the society did not grant them usage of others' property.
If you read the article about allodial ownership that I posted, you will see that the system of de jure common ownership is in majority of the Western countries. So, I don't think it's fair to say that people can only agree to jointly own stuff under very limited circumstances.
Be it as it may, I am not trying to figure out whether joint ownership of all property (barring bodies) is a subjectively attractive idea; I am trying to figure out why it's a wrong idea.
Also, the question of whether people would agree to form a contractual agreement with each other to jointly own stuff is irrelevant. That's now what I am asking.
I am asking why people ought not, instead of living in a society with natural rights and private ownership, decide to live in a society with communal ownership and assigned usage, like in all the examples I described. And I am not looking for an economic answer ("life would suck in such a society"). I am looking for a legal answer: why would the purpose of law (to resolve and prevent conflict) not be achieved in such a society?
FlyingAxe:Actually, we can. If I don't want my wife to use my property in a certain way, she can't, even though it's her property too. And vice versa.
Could you please explain how someone else being able to restrict your usage of property does not contradict your having 100% ownership of it?
I guess it boils down to logic and ethics. Obviously legal structure is a product of ethics, so you have to delve into that. And ultimately I think it just comes down to the rights of actual full property ownership...where a person own something and actually does have 100% control. This is why I don't understand how you can have such a problem with conceding that two people cannot have 100% ownership of the same thing at the same time.
I think Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism would be really helpful for you here.
he disagrees that the problem with socialism is moral or legal; in his opinion, the problem is only of utilitarian nature.
That's kind of interesting. But you did say it went against your sense of justice.
FlyingAxe:I was under impression that clarity of boundaries is one of the main requirements for conflict resolution/prevention. (Boundaries in both physical and abstract sense.) So, what is your answer? Why would a pseudo-socialist system be a bad case of conflict resolution/prevention?
Well sure... "legal systems make possible conflict-free use of resources, by establishing visible boundaries that nonowners can avoid"...but that's not all it takes. You need rules for property assignment. And as Kinsella goes on to say in that piece: "Libertarianism does not endorse just any property assignment rule, however.[13] It favors self-ownership over other-ownership (slavery)."
I highely recommend that piece, especially the "Self-ownership and Conflict-avoidance" section. It think it will help elucidate the issue and the libertarian understanding.
Now, you will say: but in this case, the boss owns all the stuff. But you might imagine that we were a corporation and everyone owned all the stuff. Conflict prevention resolution would still work just fine. (Nobody can use my stuff, unless the corporation, or the elected board, votes that he or she can.) So, I am demonstrating how conflict resolution and prevention would work just fine in a society where everyone owns every item, except one's body.
So, I am demonstrating how conflict resolution and prevention would work just fine in a society where everyone owns every item, except one's body.
a) The conflict resolution works in the corporate situation because it boils down to logical assignment of property ownership. The owner(s) of the property make the rules with regard to that property's use. It works because they have understood exclusion rights to their property.
If you assume that everyone equally owns everything, there are no such exclusion rights. Therefore, there really is no such thing as property.
b) There is no way to logically disassociate ownership of ones own self and body with ownership of other property in a "property rights" sense. In other words, there is no way to logically reject any sort of property ownership if you accept the concept of self-ownership. And of course, there is no way to justify ownership of any other property if you deny self-ownership.
So this notion of "everyone owns everything except someone else's body" is a fallacious one. It is inconsistant.
Again, I highly recommend these links pertaining specifically to ownership, as well as the Kinsella piece linked here.
FlyingAxe:such a system would be impossible and self-contradictory. But that's not the case with non-body items.)
Yes it is. See above.
The function of reductio ad absurdum is to show that the logic is flawed. It doesn't explain how and why the logic is flawed.
Logic is flawed when the reasoning proves to be illogical. I don't know what you're saying.
It just demonstrates that there is likely a problem with the argument, since it leads to apparently absurd conclusions. I don't need convincing that socialism is unjust. I need to be able to explain to someone using clear arguments why, starting from our definition of what a law is (or ought to be), we can derive logically that socialism is unjust.
Again, see the links above.
You know that this proof is incorrect, because you know that it leads to a ridiculous result. But the trick is to figure out what exactly is wrong in the reasoning.
Thanks for the links.
FlyingAxe: As I said, if I want to alter something in the car, and she doesn't want it, she can restrict me from doing it. Or if I want to take it somewhere, but she doesn't approve, she can forbid me to do so. And vice versa: I can similarly restrict her. That is why, any time two people use something, there must be consensus as to its use. (Of course, one person can always say: "I don't care what you do with this." Or: "You don't need to ask my permission if you want to take the car to X." There may be implicit understanding about such cases.)
I think you and JJ are talking past each other. With him, you were talking about about a right to property as "right to restrict others' use of an item". It is pretty close, but I believe that you phrased it better when you responded to me when you said, "In that case, it makes sense to define ownership as rightful control over an object. Restricting others' use to it is a part of control."
There is nothing necessarily wrong with some things being commonly owned. After all, land that is in public use is publicly owned, even in a ancap society. However, I find it hard to believe that people in the Soviet Union did not really believe in common ownership, even if they said they did. They still had things that they considered their own and no one else's. You might say that they think the oil industry should be nationalized and owned by everyone, but how would this be done in a legal way where people actually did own it other than the Powers That Be in the USSR?
Okay, and? How is this demonstrating that people actually believe in shared ownership? Just because people think the government represents the people doesn't make it so. This is not a society where everyone owns everything. In practice, people own their property, and then the government comes along and takes a portion of it - and not everyone has agreed to that. I don't really see how this addresses what I said.
Give me an example of something that is jointly owned that is not under limited circumstances.
What do you mean by wrong? Can you show me how all property would be jointly owned? People have to agree to it, or it's not really jointly owned...
FlyingAxe: Also, the question of whether people would agree to form a contractual agreement with each other to jointly own stuff is irrelevant. That's now what I am asking. I am asking why people ought not, instead of living in a society with natural rights and private ownership, decide to live in a society with communal ownership and assigned usage, like in all the examples I described. And I am not looking for an economic answer ("life would suck in such a society"). I am looking for a legal answer: why would the purpose of law (to resolve and prevent conflict) not be achieved in such a society?
How would you set up a society where everyone has agreed to live this way? How does law arise? How would it come to be that everything is owned by everyone and therefore no one? It just wouldn't happen, not on any large scale, and the ones that try it die out. Sure, they die out for economic reasons, but so what? I have no idea if there is a good legal reason other than it's entirely impractical. But any society that could set it up legally would still perish due to economic reasons.
Why does it matter that it be wrong legally?
Funny article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138384/Thats-roadblock-Family-refuse--new-road-constructed-AROUND-home.html
gotlucky: There is nothing necessarily wrong with some things being commonly owned. After all, land that is in public use is publicly owned, even in a ancap society. However, I find it hard to believe that people in the Soviet Union did not really believe in common ownership, even if they said they did. They still had things that they considered their own and no one else's. You might say that they think the oil industry should be nationalized and owned by everyone, but how would this be done in a legal way where people actually did own it other than the Powers That Be in the USSR?
It's true that there was private property in USSR. But that could be argued as re-allocation of common property back to the people. But even if this concerns land, what's the difference? That seems to be the case in the US: all the lands is assumed to be owned by the State, while owners are just given rights of usage.
Okay, and? How is this demonstrating that people actually believe in shared ownership? Just because people think the government represents the people doesn't make it so. This is not a society where everyone owns everything. In practice, people own their property, and then the government comes along and takes a portion of it - and not everyone has agreed to that. I don't really see how this addresses what I said. Give me an example of something that is jointly owned that is not under limited circumstances.
Presumably, all communal property is jointly owned by all society. (It's not ownerless, since a private entity can't just come and seize it.)
But that's under direct control of the society. ALL the land (that's not allodial) is owned (under control) of the society. Just like all the equipment in my lab is owned by the lab's owners. Then the right of usage is granted to the individuals, and others individuals are prohibited from using it.
It's a case of rights system within a rights system.
What do you mean? I am saying that instead of having a society where all people own their individual property (be it land or moveables), you can have a system where people own all land (and/or movable) collectively. And then, perhaps, reassign individual pseudo-ownership to individuals through whatever system. It could even be homesteading.
Because there is a difference between calling FDR a bad economist and a thief.
Okay, this was your question:
I am looking for a legal answer: why would the purpose of law (to resolve and prevent conflict) not be achieved in such a society?
I'm not going to address most of your responses to me - unless you really want me to - because I don't think they will get to the heart of your question. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your question. I mean, the USSR "worked". Disputes were resolved. It was just a might makes right system of resolving disputes, and the state was the one with the might. It's the same in the US now. It's a might makes right, and the US government and its provinces and districts are the ones with the might. Do you consider that this system works? Does the Cuban system work?
Clayton has a good post here about dual-law. It doesn't directly address your question, but I think it will help you figure out what you are looking for.
OK, so let me ask it this way then: what is wrong from non-economic point of view with all these systems? Why shouldn't it be might makes right? How would you explain this to a statist who believes in a "benign tyranny" of the state? Again, from moral/ethical/legal/social/etc. point of view, not economic one.
(I am reading Hoppe, btw. It may take me a while.)