I don't really have much knowledge on anarcho communist etc, but as I understand it, anarcho communists, advocate abolishing the state under the belief that everybody would then voluntarily live in communes etc. If this did happen would anarcho communism and the like not be products of the free market and therefore capitalist (if we chose to define capitalism in the free market sense of the word).
If on the other hand, people decided to live outside of the communes and acquire property, if the collectivist anarchists accepted this, would they not merely be market anarchists? If they didn't and used coercion to stop people acquiring property, they wouldn't be anarchists. The only justification for this would to claim that property is coercive which is ridiculous.
Or am I missing something? Because otherwise it just seems to me that people calling themselves anarcho communists or anarcho syndicalists seems a bit silly, either they accept what follows from abolishing the government or they resort to coercion, if they fit into the former category are they not recognising property rights as legitimate?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
This is one of those great questions that's difficult to answer, given the amount of hostility between anarcho-left and anarcho-right. It would seem that we're all anarchists, if we believe in a society without government. Alas, there are disagreements about what constitutes aggression and how it would be handled in a world without government.
While anarcho-capitalists have gone into this in some detail, anarcho-leftists tend to be rather vague about how it would work--they're much more focused on alternative economic arrangements than on legal systems. Is a hierarchical business arrangement coercive and exploitative, even if someone would willingly choose it in an anarchist society?
Still, in the years since I first ran into this argument, there seems to be some progress--I'm encountering more anarchists who are much more reasonable and tolerant of other anarchist types.
Your post starts off with a false assumption. Anarcho-communists do not suppose that everybody would voluntarily live in communes anymore than a market anarchist would dare suggest everybody would select a private business model for defense. I also have to object to equating the market with all forms of free association - a gift economy is not equatable to a market exchange - but that's an irrelevant discussion in relation to the topic at hand.
At what point would you count an anarcho-communist for being a statist? Opposing property that creates force and coercion is one hallmark of anarchism, and I would be quite skeptical of any market anarchist who claimed otherwise. If an anarcho-communist saw a landlord laying claim to unimproved land, or the only fertile region in a large desert, he's probably going to call for a more equitable condition. Left-anarchists believe that any property which creates coercion should either not exist or be turned over into equal ownership. To me that sounds like a reasonable anarchist solution.
For a small example, a lot of communists consider the freeware and piracy movement to be a branch of communist economics. Anarcho-capitalists are split on the role of intellectual property, but communists and left-anarchists are mostly unified against copyrights and patents. Would the communist be a statist for ignoring someone's property, or would the capitalist be a statist for forcing property rights onto another person?
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice; Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
GeneCosta: If an anarcho-communist saw a landlord laying claim to [...] the only fertile region in a large desert, he's probably going to call for a more equitable condition.
If an anarcho-communist saw a landlord laying claim to [...] the only fertile region in a large desert, he's probably going to call for a more equitable condition.
In short, the anarcho-communist would kill the owner of the fertile region, or at least chase him away with the threat of killing him, and take it over, soon turning it into barren desert (much like Mugabe and his thugs taking over the farms in Zimbabwe); the anarcho-capitalist, on the other hand, would probably assume that the reason it's the only fertile region in a large desert in the first place is because the owner made it so, and congratulate him. (Even if it's a natural feature, the communist had no right to it...)
That's quite a straw man you came up with since I clearly stated left-anarchists believe it should fall under equal ownership. If the fertility of land was a bi-product of this person's labor I'm not aware of any left-anarchist or anarcho-communist who would call for others to intrude under the principles of anarchism. Your last statement is quite telling about what system you envision. To utilize the natural world as a way to create coercive hierarchies and relationships is statist.
What is statist is aggression (the threat or use of initiatory physical force) and hegemonic hierarchies based on this. How are you defining coercion, GeneCosta? Simply owning property and using it as you see fit, so long as you don't interfere with the equal rights of others to their own property, is not aggressive and so is not statist. Private property is not statist.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
GeneCosta: That's quite a straw man you came up with since I clearly stated left-anarchists believe it should fall under equal ownership.
That's quite a straw man you came up with since I clearly stated left-anarchists believe it should fall under equal ownership.
And if the original owner didn't want to have his property equally divided, then what? (And "equally" between whom, anyway? Equal shares for every person in the world?)
The definition you provided excuses behavior that allows for the protection and ownership of land that hasn't even been "broken in." Charters, at best. My criticism is not targeted towards private property as an abstract or even existing idea. It is a criticism of any notion that an absolute land ownership system can be turned into a coherent position for anarchists.
Who is to say that an unimproved bit of land should be his property in the first property? Him? He has just made himself into a state by doing so, and I will gladly contest that argument. The land is not being divided into equal blocks. That would only complicate the situation whenever a new person finds himself (or herself) interested in the area. Ownership is extending to all parties interested in improving the land. They must do so to be considered the owners.
GeneCosta: The definition you provided excuses behavior that allows for the protection and ownership of land that hasn't even been "broken in." Charters, at best. My criticism is not targeted towards private property as an abstract or even existing idea. It is a criticism of any notion that an absolute land ownership system can be turned into a coherent position for anarchists.
I'm not sure what you mean by any of that. What exactly does "aggression as the only thing that violates rights" excuse that you want to prevent by force? If you're not criticizing private property per se then where is it we disagree? What do you mean by absolute land ownership system? You don't believe in private ownership of land?
I doubt anyone here believes in ownership over unimproved land...
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GeneCosta:Who is to say that an unimproved bit of land should be his property in the first property? Him?
If it's unowned, he can homestead it. To homestead it, he has to do something with it. He can't just claim it from a distance or stick a flag in it (a la the US with the moon).
GeneCosta:He has just made himself into a state by doing so,
I don't see this. You're going to have to be far more specific in your arguments. At the moment, you're being too cursory.
GeneCosta:The land is not being divided into equal blocks.
Why should it be?
GeneCosta:Ownership is extending to all parties interested in improving the land.
Why? Unowned land is not given to all in common. There's no reason why there has to be equal ownership of land.
Claiming ownership over property that does not rightfully belong to that source is the main method a state (tries) legitimizing itself.
If it's unowned, he can homestead it.
You're making a case for a different argument. The situation I referenced would involve a wealthy individual using his resources to protect vast tracks of land for speculation or rent purposes. Having never improved the land, he has no right to ownership. People would be right to diminish and abolish his control until the tenants became owners - both by ignoring his calls for payment and confronting his defense agency.
GeneCosta: I don't see this. You're going to have to be far more specific in your arguments. At the moment, you're being too cursory. Claiming ownership over property that does not rightfully belong to that source is the main method a state (tries) legitimizing itself.
But someone who homesteads unowned land is thereby the rightful owner. Thus, no statist.
GeneCosta: If it's unowned, he can homestead it. You're making a case for a different argument. The situation I referenced would involve a wealthy individual using his resources to protect vast tracks of land for speculation or rent purposes. Having never improved the land, he has no right to ownership and people would rightly diminish his control under the tenants became owners.
You're making a case for a different argument. The situation I referenced would involve a wealthy individual using his resources to protect vast tracks of land for speculation or rent purposes. Having never improved the land, he has no right to ownership and people would rightly diminish his control under the tenants became owners.
When you bring up rent, you raise a red flag. Do you believe renting land or other property is wrong? I don't. And I don't see that renting out one's property diminishes one's rights in them.
If a wealthy person homesteads or buys a tract of land and rents it out to farmers, say, I don't see a problem with this. He doesn't have to actually farm it himself. Hiring wage laborers to do the farming for him would be little different. If he homesteads or buys some land, does he have to put to use in some way, say farming, right away? That strikes me as obviously unfair. How much time does he have before the land is considered abandoned? (Even Lockean free market anarchists have to have some allowance for abandoned property.)
Also, I don't see a problem necessarily in individuals or groups homesteading or buying up some land to create a nature preserve for which few improvements can be made by definition. They might mark off the territory in some customary, intersubjectively objective and agreed upon way at its borders and charge a small fee to hunters, campers, tourists, etc., maybe set up a few low impact campsites, paths or roads but otherwise leave the land pristine. I would not agree that anyone can just go in and become a squatter and start accruing rights to that land.
All of our discussions about homesteading, buying and selling land assume some customary ways of doing so that are largely agreed upon: marking off territory in some way that others will recognize, making a claim with known property registration services so that others can easily determine whether or not the land is owned by checking with the registry, etc.
You're probably envisioning some disturbing scenario involving some irrational capitalist who buys up huge swaths of land and bizarrely refusing to do anything with it while preventing anyone else from doing anything with it too.
Do you believe renting land or other property is wrong?
Renting unimproved land certainly is. If you want to rent your house, or car, or farm, be my guess.
... natural preserves ...
That opens up a whole grocery list of new problems by freely admitting that someone can refuse to improve land and still acquire it as their own against others who would want to homestead the land for their own benefit. Obviously we're going to work with some leniency in a post-state society - some fool may claim urination as a process of acquisition - but large-scale private ownership of unimproved land would be hotly contested. I refer back to a previous statement about equal ownership for everyone interested in managing such land.
... irrational capitalist ...
On the contrary, land speculation and land rent are utilized quite frequently even with the state's monopoly being so present.
GeneCosta: Do you believe renting land or other property is wrong? Renting unimproved land certainly is. If you want to rent your house, or car, or farm, be my guess.
Are you ruling out homesteading or buying land and then either hiring farmers or renting the land out to them then? If so, I don't think I can agree with you.
GeneCosta: ... natural preserves ... That opens up a whole grocery list of new problems by freely admitting that someone can refuse to improve land and still acquire it as their own against others who would want to homestead the land for their own benefit. Obviously we're going to work with some leniency in a post-state society - some fool may claim urination as a process of acquisition - but large-scale private ownership of unimproved land would be hotly contested. I refer back to a previous statement about equal ownership for everyone interested in managing such land.
This goes back to customary means of homesteading, buying, selling, and abandoning land. Are you not an environmentalist? Or at least interested in preserving some tracts of land in their pristine state to provide places that people can enjoy in their natural state as tourists, campers, hikers, hunters, etc.? I doubt it anyone could get away with homesteading unreasonably large tracts of land for this purpose, so I don't see the problem here. I think reasonable nature preserves would come to be accepted as legitimate private property, sometimes as non-state public property that is owned jointly by certain communities, sometimes just owned by individuals or firms. As for your fear of wealthy speculators, as I said, our discussion is assuming customary means of homesteading, buying, selling and abandoning land. I strongly doubt urination will become a customarily acceptable means of homesteading. Owning large tracts of land is also not necessarily a problem. If you leave it unused for too long, it might be considered abandoned, however. But you have to give people some time to use the land they homestead or buy. This can't all be determined apriori from the philosopher's armchair.
GeneCosta: ... irrational capitalist ... On the contrary, land speculation and land rent are utilized quite frequently even with the state's monopoly being so present.
You say 'even'. I might say instead that to the extent that land speculation and land rent are bad, it is largely because of the state. That you say 'even' implies you think the state actually serves to put a strong check on powerful plutocrats and big corporations. It doesn't. It enables them, privileges them against everyone else. The state and big corporations benefit each other, even as each tries to be the dominant partner.
That depends on the particular scenario. If you are trying to enforce yourself as the property owner to land that has never been touched (say, a plot of unspoiled land on the outskirts of an expanding city) neither I nor anyone else have any ethical obligations to pay rent, nor would you be able to easily evict someone. It would probably be the reverse; that tenant would evict you. Now, if you offer me thirty handcrafted birdhouses in exchange for creating you a house on this same plot of land, that is another matter entirely.
I strongly doubt urination will become a customarily acceptable means of homesteading.
Nor did I presume as much.
This can't all be determined apriori from the philosopher's armchair.
Of course. There will be fluctuations, and large disagreements, and probably some instances of open conflict between two differing views of what constitutes justified acquisition. I am merely pointing out that people who claim large portions of unimproved land as their own are going to have a hella' hard time, and rightfully so. Natural reserves would probably come about through a wide or small variety of people pooling their land together, perhaps turning it over to a cooperative or workers' council styled organization. As for environmental degradation I imagine unions as well as consumer activist groups would be able to pressure most firms into proper resource replenishment programs.
That you say 'even' implies you think the state actually serves to put a strong check on powerful plutocrats and big corporations. It doesn't. It enables them, privileges them against everyone else. The state and big corporations benefit each other, even as each tries to be the dominant partner.
Heh, I would have to dispute any association with that conclusion. I'm squarely in agreement with yours. I have yet to admit as much for fear of being ostracized, but I think it's pretty obvious I fall along the left-libertarian/libertarian socialist perspective. I have a largely different view of a post-state society than most people here in that I believe communist, collectivist, market, and bartering economies will all be just as regular as their counterparts. I also think people will prefer consensus and majority democracy associations over business models. Personal matters, of course. Seeing Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, and Karl Marx as good sources of inspiration takes a toll in discussions on most forums.
I utilized the word "even" because large reserves of land are blocked from private development and acquisition.
And yes, I do consider myself an environmentalist.
GeneCosta: Who is to say that an unimproved bit of land should be his property in the first property? Him? He has just made himself into a state by doing so, and I will gladly contest that argument. The land is not being divided into equal blocks. That would only complicate the situation whenever a new person finds himself (or herself) interested in the area. Ownership is extending to all parties interested in improving the land. They must do so to be considered the owners.
What unimproved land? You initially said "if an anarcho-communist saw a landlord laying claim to unimproved land, or the only fertile region in a large desert ..."; I didn't mention to "unimproved land", just the "fertile region in a desert" (which is assumed to not be "unimproved land" by the meaning of "or" ;else it's subsumed by the first and why mention it separately? If you know what the Austro-libertarian position on land ownership is, there's no argument; and if you don't, you really should look that up before trying to argue about it!)
Right-o. In stark conditions where acquiring the natural world would put your immediate neighbors into a grave disadvantage people will convene to prevent economic coercion. This would be true in almost any scenario. I'm sure D. Friedman would agree, although he may find the act revolting, whereas I uphold the libertarian socialist maxim that the best possible scenario is the one that minimalizes economic, political, social, and religious coercion. In the desert example choice is severely limited to the point it produces a condition where death or virtual slavery exist as the strongest possibilities. The town need not even be isolated. If a large enough population has such a pressing issue, there's going to be social upheaval. The defense agency will either have to arbitrate or cut into their profit margin by expending ammunition.
To assume nothing like that would happen is pure mental masturbation.
I'm well aware of the Austrian response. Like anything else I don't put all my reason into one basket. The Austrian school is very strong in its beliefs, but not perfect. Nor should it be substituted for perfection.
GeneCosta: Right-o. In stark conditions where acquiring the natural world would put your immediate neighbors into a grave disadvantage people will convene to prevent economic coercion. This would be true in almost any scenario. I'm sure D. Friedman would agree, although he may find the act revolting, whereas I uphold the libertarian socialist maxim that the best possible scenario is the one that minimalizes economic, political, social, and religious coercion.
Right-o. In stark conditions where acquiring the natural world would put your immediate neighbors into a grave disadvantage people will convene to prevent economic coercion. This would be true in almost any scenario. I'm sure D. Friedman would agree, although he may find the act revolting, whereas I uphold the libertarian socialist maxim that the best possible scenario is the one that minimalizes economic, political, social, and religious coercion.
So you want to minimize coercion, but you support coercion against the guy who owns the oasis because...??
And what do you mean by "economic, social and religious coercion"? If they hold a gun to your head, that's political coercion; if they don't, it isn't coercion at all.
GeneCosta: In the desert example choice is severely limited to the point it produces a condition where death or virtual slavery exist as the strongest possibilities.
In the desert example choice is severely limited to the point it produces a condition where death or virtual slavery exist as the strongest possibilities.
Well, the choice is not to move into a desert if you can't survive there!
His claim to the oasis is not legitimate. It is no more an intolerable act than taking swipes at the state. In this instance private ownership puts others in a more coercive situation. But if such a scenario arises, you can gladly be on his side of defense. Theories are wonderful, but practicality comes first. Communists seem to suffer from a similar problem.
Tell that to the millions who grow up in desert regions. Or do you expect them to move for your convenience? How very - coercive.
If they hold a gun to your head, that's political coercion; if they don't, it isn't coercion at all.
If, hypothetically, I'm encircled with your property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, it isn't an act of coercion, eh? Again I refer to my statement about this being mental masturbation.
GeneCosta: So you want to minimize coercion, but you support coercion against the guy who owns the oasis because...?? His claim to the oasis is not legitimate.
His claim to the oasis is not legitimate.
How do you know it's not legitimate?
GeneCosta: Well, the choice is not to move into a desert if you can't survive there! Tell that to the millions who grow up in desert regions. Or do you expect them to move for your convenience?
Tell that to the millions who grow up in desert regions. Or do you expect them to move for your convenience?
No; they obviously can survive there! Or moving would be for their convenience, not mine, wouldn't it? (What part of "move into" did you interpret as "grow up in"?)
GeneCosta: If they hold a gun to your head, that's political coercion; if they don't, it isn't coercion at all. If, hypothetically, I'm encircled with your property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, it isn't an act of coercion, eh?
If, hypothetically, I'm encircled with your property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, it isn't an act of coercion, eh?
Of course it isn't. You're currently encircled by a gravity well you can't get out of - is that coercion?
Oh boy. If I really need to distinguish between a physical phenomena constrained by reality and a social construct enforced by one group of humans onto another, I may as well end the conversation now. Even advocates for natural rights see the contradiction between the actions undertaken by humans and nature.
Because I say economic coercion on that level is illegitimate; the same reason you think it isn't. Looks like in a post-state society this will be a source of confrontation where property owners are going to have quite a time trying to fend off their claims.
No; they obviously can survive there! Or moving would be for their convenience, not mine, wouldn't it?
Surviving isn't the problem. How one acquires survival is.
GeneCosta: Of course it isn't. You're currently encircled by a gravity well you can't get out of - is that coercion? Oh boy. If I really need to distinguish between a physical phenomena constrained by reality and a social construct enforced by one group of humans onto another, I may as well end the conversation now. Even advocates for natural rights see the contradiction between the actions undertaken by humans and nature.
But earlier you said
GeneCosta: ... In this instance private ownership puts others in a more coercive situation.
and
GeneCosta:In stark conditions where acquiring the natural world would put your immediate neighbors into a grave disadvantage people will convene to prevent economic coercion.
What you call economic coercion, it would seem, is nothing more than people's natural response (dehydration, death, etc.) to one person's refusal to share his water or whatever in the desert; to wit, "a physical phenomena constrained by reality."
pwnd.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
In the general form of the argument as presented by Costa I do agree, but I have three questions that may wrestle out the details for everyone concerned.
1) The person that has a natural monopoly and is improving the land, does that person have a moral right to continue claim on that land? If not, why?
(examples: a building firm in a downtown setting buying/selling buildings, repairing them (or completely replacing them with better ones), and then rents them out. Or someone who takes that fertile land as you talked about in one of your own examples, improves that land, and rents it at a nominal fee for the cost of improvements and continued maintenance.)
2) Do you agree that land in itself has no inherent value? If not, why?
(This is something I try to point out to "Tuckerites" but they seem all too keen to dodge this question...)
3) In a state-free situation, would land ownership be a significant economic influence? And how?
(This is a question more of specification of hypothetical economic conditions than the beliefs one espouses...)
Thanks in advance.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Are you done? Because, no libertarian theorist worth their salt I know of, argues that land (as in any natural resource) can be acquired without improving it, according to community standards. In fact, no one has any reason to respect a claim to property unless there is some objective link between the owner and the natural resource, such as expending one's time in appropriating it. So please save the "WTF!?" for statements to which it is a pertinent response, and not expositions of basic libertarian property theory. I did not say one cannot acquire land by purchasing it...
GeneCosta:If, hypothetically, I'm encircled with your property and the conditions for my escape are limited to your pleasures, it isn't an act of coercion, eh? Again I refer to my statement about this being mental masturbation.
Libertarians have dealt with this apparent problem. If someone owns a plot of land and you buy up the land in a circle around him, it is not legitimate for you to prohibit him from leaving his land or to make outrageous demands in exchange for so allowing him. You are obligated to grant him an easement.
GeneCosta: Are you ruling out homesteading or buying land and then either hiring farmers or renting the land out to them then? If so, I don't think I can agree with you. That depends on the particular scenario. If you are trying to enforce yourself as the property owner to land that has never been touched (say, a plot of unspoiled land on the outskirts of an expanding city) neither I nor anyone else have any ethical obligations to pay rent, nor would you be able to easily evict someone. It would probably be the reverse; that tenant would evict you. Now, if you offer me thirty handcrafted birdhouses in exchange for creating you a house on this same plot of land, that is another matter entirely.
If I claim a plot of unused land or buy it from someone else who had, it is mine and I can go and rent it to farmers or hire some. If someone starts squatting there in the meantime while I look for some farmers, the land doesn't thereby become theirs. You're not addressing the issue of how long someone can in your view own unused land before it is fair game for anyone else to claim. The original claimant or the recent buyer must have some time to make use of it, but he can't have unlimited time because at some point the land must count as having been abandoned.
GeneCosta:Heh, I would have to dispute any association with that conclusion. I'm squarely in agreement with yours. I have yet to admit as much for fear of being ostracized, but I think it's pretty obvious I fall along the left-libertarian/libertarian socialist perspective. I have a largely different view of a post-state society than most people here in that I believe communist, collectivist, market, and bartering economies will all be just as regular as their counterparts. I also think people will prefer consensus and majority democracy associations over business models. Personal matters, of course. Seeing Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker, and Karl Marx as good sources of inspiration takes a toll in discussions on most forums.
That you prefer a certain set of economic arrangements doesn't necessarily imply that you would initiate force to bring them about. The important question then would be whether you think it would be legitimate to aggress against the owners of a nature preserve or the owner of a large plot of unused land who is looking for someone to buy it from him or rent it from him or to hire someone to use it according to his wishes (say farming). Just because it is unused at the moment doesn't mean the guy doesn't have legitimate title to it. You need to specify in some general way approximately how long he has to make use of it before it can be considered abandoned. People will no doubt disagree on this time frame, and it will probably be strongly case dependent, but I don't see it as reasonable to claim the guy never had legitimate title to begin with. And would you initiate force to eliminate business models of which you don't approve?
GeneCosta:I utilized the word "even" because large reserves of land are blocked from private development and acquisition.
And most of that is state "owned."
GeneCosta: So you want to minimize coercion, but you support coercion against the guy who owns the oasis because...?? His claim to the oasis is not legitimate. It is no more an intolerable act than taking swipes at the state. In this instance private ownership puts others in a more coercive situation. But if such a scenario arises, you can gladly be on his side of defense. Theories are wonderful, but practicality comes first. Communists seem to suffer from a similar problem. Well, the choice is not to move into a desert if you can't survive there! Tell that to the millions who grow up in desert regions. Or do you expect them to move for your convenience? How very - coercive.
This all depends. It depends on who gets there first. If I am the first to enter a desert region and discover an oasis., it is perfectly legitimate for me to claim the oasis as my property, so long as I actually use it or plan to in the near future and have marked my claim in a customary way. If others later enter the region and set up shop, if they want to use the oasis they have to make arrangements with me. If, on the other hand, a community or several communities have already been living in the region and have been using the oasis for years, if not generations, then I cannot legitimately move in and claim the oasis as my own just because it doesn't appear to have been used or improved in any obvious way. The oasis is the joint property of the community members or of the members of the several communities.
What you call economic coercion, it would seem, is nothing more than people's natural response (dehydration, death, etc.) to one person's refusal to share his water or whatever in the desert; to wit, "a physical phenomena constrained by reality." pwnd.
Somewhere in the cosmos Henry George and Benjamin Tucker are busting their guts at the idea of another person comparing reality to social constructs.
His water? I don't recall water being the product of human toil. Surely we haven't jumped to the conclusion that one advocates licking the sweat off another person?
This goes against earlier statements about people being able to acquire the natural world with little or no improvements for environmental purposes. It appears my "subjective" statement is being championed by everyone on the forum, including some of the strictest propertarians.
Acquiring property first is rarely a good indicator of physical talent, cleverness, or any trait we would consider a positive influence. And it isn't always a defensible position, either.
Good. So we're in agreement that the call for absolute rights is illegitimate when it creates more coercion.
GeneCosta:Good. So we're in agreement that the call for absolute rights is illegitimate when it creates more coercion.
That depends on the definition of coercion we're using here. Someone who has a natural monopoly on being the sewer cleaner is not coercing anyone to use his/her services as others can come into the sewer cleaning industry to offset him. The only argument against so-called absolute rights is when the rights exclude the rights of another, which Locke explained far better than anyone has so far. Which is also why I'm against communism (state form) or any ism that requires a state to leverage its dominance.
GeneCosta: His water? I don't recall water being the product of human toil. Surely we haven't jumped to the conclusion that one advocates licking the sweat off another person?
If one conceded that privately ownable commodities were restricted to what is the product of one's labor, and that everything else was "equally owned," then yes, it would logically follow that one may lick the sweat off another person (since all water is owned equally between everyone). Of course, such absurd conclusions are not a problem for me because I'm not a libertarian-socialist.
GeneCosta: What you call economic coercion, it would seem, is nothing more than people's natural response (dehydration, death, etc.) to one person's refusal to share his water or whatever in the desert; to wit, "a physical phenomena constrained by reality." pwnd. Somewhere in the cosmos Henry George and Benjamin Tucker are busting their guts at the idea of another person comparing reality to social constructs.
Are you referring to yourself?! You contend that one guy dying of dehydration in the desert is somehow the fault of another guy who wouldn't give him water!
Here are two realities that I recognize: scarcity and individualism. You are oblivious to both.
Jon Irenicus: Are you done? Because, no libertarian theorist worth their salt I know of, argues that land (as in any natural resource) can be acquired without improving it, according to community standards. In fact, no one has any reason to respect a claim to property unless there is some objective link between the owner and the natural resource, such as expending one's time in appropriating it. So please save the "WTF!?" for statements to which it is a pertinent response, and not expositions of basic libertarian property theory. I did not say one cannot acquire land by purchasing it... -Jon
Yea there's this little concept we call homesteading. :P
You'd need to define "absolute" first, because I think you're using the term in a specific way that differs from how we use it.
Solomon (and others), try be courteous at least - GeneCosta is making the effort to educate himself on the matter by discussing it with us.
GeneCosta:His claim to the oasis is not legitimate. It is no more an intolerable act than taking swipes at the state. In this instance private ownership puts others in a more coercive situation.
No, it doesn't. Assuming that the late-comers are just that--late-comers--and given that the person was not the one who caused their problem in the first place, his ownership claim is in no way a "more coercive situation". You argue from the same vantage as the idiotic "sin of omission". The oasis-owner might do things in poor taste, perhaps, but certainly his claim is not illegitimate. Only if he caused the problem (which he didn't) would you be correct in your view.
Are we taking the royal view of Locke or one that acknowledges the proviso as an instrumental part of property acquisition? I have to object to comparing labor and land as completely similar means of wealth. Calling for the sewer cleaner to not act is not the same as calling for him to act. This is a verifiable portion of any libertarian philosophy: the rejection of murder and rape.
You're misconstruing my words. I made no implications about one person refusing to give another water. This draws on an image of someone being forced to carry a dehydrated person to the local waterhole. Obviously you are not theoretically compelled to such actions, even though in practical circumstances a scenario like this would probably stray from all ideology.
Not giving and not allowing are different concepts.
Here are two realities that I recognize: scarcity and individualism.
That's a dubious assertion.