I am currently debating with a libertarian socialist (a strange contradiction in terms) over property. He insists that society can function without property rights AND central control of any kind. I am trying to pry information out of him as to how exactly this would function, but it is proving to be a frustrating endeavor. So I wanted to ask if anyone here knows the mechanics involved or had a decent source of information on it. I want to give him the benefit of doubt, but the whole left libertarianism issue is starting to sound like wishful thinking.
I'm not quite sure what he is getting at, which is why I am trying to research libertarian socialists views on property a bit.
His take on property seems to revolve around Locke, but I still can't understand how it could be implemented realistically and without state or community control.
He offers this analogy:
"Moreover, think of land in common as an apartment shared by three individuals, each have their own room. They have interest in their own room, and can decorate it as they want, etc but they don't own the room as PROPERTY, thus they cannot start smashing the walls without the consent of every other member of the commons because it all belongs to all and at the same time to none."
Hmmm, I have never come across the term "libertarian socialist" before. I've heard of anarcho-communists, however. Perhaps you can start there and investigate. Don't forget to report your findings!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
There is no such animal. A Liberterian believes rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights are based upon individual property rights starting with ownership of self and going on to ownership of other things. A socialist by definition is against private property and therefore against the basis of the right of an individual to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. The first part to go for the socialist is the Pursuit of Happiness as the government or other agency determines through violent force how the individual pursues happiness. Notice that this is really not a right at all to the socialist. The worst thing a socialist does short of curtailing liberty and life is to curtail the ability of individual owners of things to transact (trade) these things on mutually agreeable terms. Now the slippery slope to violent oblivion..... As individuals resist the force of the agency, the agency must increase penalties to keep the individuals complying. This situation is now unstable as the increasing resistance from the individual results in increased reduction in propperty and/or liberty from individual. Eventually as always happens in socialist societies the agency or state turns to violence and destroys life.
The three largest socialist experiments in history bore this out: 1. Russian Revolution and subsequent Purges of Stalin, 30 to 50 million people killed. 2. Facists (National Socialists) Revolutions in Germany and Italty, and subsequent massacre of WW2-20-30 million killed. 3. Original Communist Revolution in China plus subsequent Cultural Revolutions in China-10 to 15 million people killed.
Libertas est Veritas:I am currently debating with a libertarian socialist (a strange contradiction in terms) over property. He insists that society can function without property rights AND central control of any kind. I am trying to pry information out of him as to how exactly this would function, but it is proving to be a frustrating endeavor. So I wanted to ask if anyone here knows the mechanics involved or had a decent source of information on it. I want to give him the benefit of doubt, but the whole left libertarianism issue is starting to sound like wishful thinking.
Its a misuse of words, anyways. Libertarianism is free market. What he wants is liberal socialism, that fantasy existed about 80 years ago but was destroyed by the experiences of real socialism in the USSR.
Liberty can not exist without property rights. If you depend on the state for all your needs you have no choice but to obey the state. There can be no political dissent because those in power literally own you and can destroy you. If there is only one employer, you can not afford to offend it.
Peace
Libertas est Veritas:He offers this analogy:"Moreover, think of land in common as an apartment shared by three individuals, each have their own room. They have interest in their own room, and can decorate it as they want, etc but they don't own the room as PROPERTY, thus they cannot start smashing the walls without the consent of every other member of the commons because it all belongs to all and at the same time to none."
That scenario is perflectly compatible with free markets. "Private" property does not imply singular ownership. Group ownership is common, and oftentimes prefered over ownership by a single, private individual. In a free market, property is distributed according to the wishes and desires of the actors in that market. An apartment with three co-owners would certainly include some sort of an agreement, whether implicit or explicit, on how to treat the common areas (and walls, for that matter).
The real issue is how that property was allocated in the first place. Does the co-ownership come from three individuals freely choosing to co-own an apartment? If so, then we could call that process the free market, capitalism or libertarianism. On the other hand, if the co-ownership is not arrived at through purely voluntary means (say one or two of the co-owners forcefully change the ownership contract for whatever reason), we'd call it socialism.
Or course there are commons we don't willfully choose to be a part of, such as the atmosphere. But to critique libertarianism on its treatment of those commons, he'll need a better analogy.
I'm not quite sure what he is getting at, which is why I am trying to research libertarian socialists views on property a bit.His take on property seems to revolve around Locke, but I still can't understand how it could be implemented realistically and without state or community control.He offers this analogy:"Moreover, think of land in common as an apartment shared by three individuals, each have their own room. They have interest in their own room, and can decorate it as they want, etc but they don't own the room as PROPERTY, thus they cannot start smashing the walls without the consent of every other member of the commons because it all belongs to all and at the same time to none."
Which, of course, assumes land is owned in common to begin with. How did such ownership come by? It is question-begging.
it all belongs to all and at the same time to none
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Libertarians as such oppose the initiation of force. Whatever else specific libertarians may believe does not become part of libertarian doctrine simply because most libertarians believe it, unless of course it is a priori derivable from the opposition to the initiation of force. What we need to do with an idea like "libertarian socialism" (not a contradiction in terms, even if it may be a contradiction in practice) is to first figure out what it means. Is it possible to bring out a world without ownership without initiating force, regardless of whether it is preferable? It would seem not to be, but a proxy exists - we can imagine a word where ownership is exercised by a group or organization of some kind, which manages the property in a socialist, centrally controlled manner. Thus, for example, a commune is imaginable in a free world - the members of the commune simply come together and make the appropriate agreements (among us, no one may exercise ownership privileges over...) Now, will there be conflict among these people? Of course, and I predict that they would starve if the commune did not draft other people. But libertarian socialism certainly is possible, if we understand it as simply a management policy. For example, consider the family. This was also one of my problems with Atlas Shrugged - the payment and work assignment policies of the engine company are presented as the ultimate evil, but they were no such thing - people were free to quit, as John Galt amply demonstrated. In fact, he could have quit without giving a bitter speech, if he chose to.
JAlanKatz:we can imagine a word where ownership is exercised by a group or organization of some kind, which manages the property in a socialist, centrally controlled manner.
Well yes, sure. In a libertarian world there's nothing to prevent people from forming voluntary groups of any kind, including communistic ones, but I think the original question was is it possible to have world "libertarian socialism"? Obviously a world totally devoid of property rights is completely untenable because of the problems of self-ownership. And in a world partially devoid of property rights, all you have is socialism, certainly not libertarianism. So the whole idea is nonsense.
Libertas est Veritas:I am currently debating with a libertarian socialist (a strange contradiction in terms) over property. He insists that society can function without property rights AND central control of any kind.
I am currently debating with a libertarian socialist (a strange contradiction in terms) over property. He insists that society can function without property rights AND central control of any kind.
Oh I misread. So he's just a Communist. It was believed that the Socialist State would melt away and a stateless "communism" would form.
In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees socialism as the heir of conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focusing. Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc. Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within socialism: one was the right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism; but especially the smashing of the state apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government by men by the administration of things,” can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen versus workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. [4] Saint-Simon at one time in his confused and chaotic life was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole left-socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the left socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact, even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.
In my experience, there are two basic types of "libertarian socialists": (1) those that support free association and (2) those that do not. I get along relatively well with the former, but the latter I have major problems with. I found the idea of libertarian socialism to be a contradiction in terms for a while, however, upon further research and reflection it makes sense in terms of a voluntary communal or syndicalist type of organization structure. Granted, in utilitarian terms it is a horrid and unworkable idea, but I fully support anyone's liberty to join or not join such an organization, provided of course that they do not force me into it. On the other hand, the types who favor it as a compulsory system, and who advocate mass-theft, are really not libertarians at all. Unfortunately, from my observations at least, a good chunk of the anarchist left is constituted by people who advocate violence as means to their ends, and also hypocritically support state interventions in the present as some kind of pretext to a future anarchy (probably because of the left-over influence of Marx).
econ student:Hmmm, I have never come across the term "libertarian socialist" before. I've heard of anarcho-communists, however. Perhaps you can start there and investigate. Don't forget to report your findings!
I did try to find specifics on my own, but didn't really come away with anything, beyond some vague rational between ownership and posession. I have no idea how that would work without some outside authority.
JAlanKatz:But libertarian socialism certainly is possible, if we understand it as simply a management policy.
True, but that would make it only a commune within a libertarian society. But the elimination of private property would apparently be society-wide since libertarian socialism is based on the 'private ownership is exploitation' mantra of Marxists.
http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=369
A good article on the matter of left- vs market anarchism.
Libertas est Veritas:His take on property seems to revolve around Locke, but I still can't understand how it could be implemented realistically and without state or community control.He offers this analogy:"Moreover, think of land in common as an apartment shared by three individuals, each have their own room. They have interest in their own room, and can decorate it as they want, etc but they don't own the room as PROPERTY, thus they cannot start smashing the walls without the consent of every other member of the commons because it all belongs to all and at the same time to none."
He is confusing common ownership & rights with collective ownership & rights.
Inquisitor:Which, of course, assumes land is owned in common to begin with. How did such ownership come by? It is question-begging.
Well since the "land" pre-exists human labor it can not be the result of human labor. Property rights are based on labor as the natural extension of self.
The first human being in the world can go anywhere and do anything they wish. With the addition of others those abilities are not abrogated they are only transformed into individual EQUAL rights (common rights). You are free to act so long as you do not infringe on any other individuals equal right to the same.
Community of goods what certainly be possible in a libertarian society. The other way round would however not work that well, since the state has control over all (technical/formal) means of production under socialism. If people are opposed to capitalism/market/private property etc., they ought to start a commune by their own means. Funny, but I don't see Marxists, Socialists doing that. They seem to prefer living in "Capitalist" countries.
WmBGreene:The first human being in the world can go anywhere and do anything they wish. With the addition of others those abilities are not abrogated they are only transformed into individual EQUAL rights (common rights). You are free to act so long as you do not infringe on any other individuals equal right to the same.
On your terms, I don't see how this is possible - I am free to move so long as I do not restrict where others can move by doing so - but since place to stand is finite, I cannot even stand without restricting where others can move. Land, as you say, is not the result of human labor. But it is only through labor that land becomes a useful resource, which is how property in land can be assigned.
Well since the "land" pre-exists human labor it can not be the result of human labor.
For. The. Last. Time. Labour. Does. Not. Establish. Ownership.
For Socialism to exist you need a government to do the redistribution of wealth and property. Or else who is going to do the redistribution? I don't think a Libertarian would consistently volunteer to redistribute his property to everyone else whenever he makes a gain.
Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron. He is either a Libertarian or a Socialist.
One cannot have a redistribution of wealth without a government to enforce it. Who is going to divide up everyones property in a society with no government? The government has to do it. I doubt a Libertarian would consistently volunteer to redistribute his own property everytime he makes a gain. Somebody else would have to do it, and that somebody else is government.
Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron. You're either a Libertarian or a Socialist.
You're not being creative enough...
These people deny private property altogether, or at least think it must be divided equally if it is to exist. Property must be held in public and managed 'democratically' (no explanation is given as to how ownership is established, or why there shouldn't be some world government to manage the 'commons'... but that is an aside.) No redistribution takes place. it is state-like in the extreme, but contradictory it is not. I do not know why they call it 'socialism' though. I always thought socialism was a stage on the way to communism, the latter of which would be the name I chose for the ideology.
Meh, posted a message earlier; seems it didn't work.
Anyway, you guys are misunderstanding their aim. They do not aim to redistribute wealth, because they believe property ought to be held in common, and 'democratically' managed. This is state-like, yes, but it involves no redistribution of private property. This applies to anarcho-socialism mainly. They believe publicly holding property better secures individual liberty. Personally, I do not see why they do not just call themselves communists, given that socialism is a mere transitionary stage to communism. Also, if property is to be held in common, why not a world government in place of 'autonomous' communes?
Libertarian socialism is a strange beast. I read an interesting article that basically attempts to discredit Mises:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secI1.html
However it's full of flaws. It discusses the calculation principle, and says that it holds for state socialism but not for libertarian socialism because organizations can determine the number of inputs needed for any given project and thereby adequety predict what to use. However, this simply reverses the principle. Now, instead of the inputs being uncalculable, the labor side is uncalculable. With out a market or cohersion, who would work in a sewage processing plant? No one would perform any of the ugly low skill jobs that are high paid. This would basically require some sort of peudo-state to force people to work in these jobs.
Second, with out property rights or the rule of law, how are conflicts resolved? There is no set of rules, so you could naturally infer that each person makes the rules, each organization makes its rules or they are determined with unfettered "Athenian" democracy (who would oversee the vote?). The two former solutions would create inconsistent rules and a whole host of problems, the latter would simply be mob rule or the tyranny of teh majority.
Finally, such a society is enormously unstable. With out a some sort of preestablished goverance structure, the likelihood of some thug rising to power during a crisis is extraordinarily high. In times of crisis people are scarred and run to anyone they think can save them, these people are often charasmatic tyrants such as Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. The other possibility is that with out proper organization, a defense can not be adequetly formed and the society is simply crushed by any other nation that felt it beneficial to invade.
Either way, a libertarian socialist society is unfeasable and undesirable.
This idea, even if such an arrangement could be entered into with out property rights as some have pointed out, is problematic. My father owns a property management company and he has mentioned several times that each individual room is usually well treated, but the common areas are completely neglected. It's a small scale version of the tragedy of the commons. Only some sort of cohersive state could prevent the common areas from being neglected and abused. So when expanded to an entire society; the choice becomes either state cohersion or an enviromental catastrophe.
Inquisitor: Well since the "land" pre-exists human labor it can not be the result of human labor. For. The. Last. Time. Labour. Does. Not. Establish. Ownership.
To clarify: No material resources are "created" out of thin air. All property, in order to come into ownership, initially involves the transformation of previously unused resources, I.E. original appropriation or homesteading. All previously unused resources come from, tada, the land. Hence, in the abscence of land ownership, there is no such thing as property in anything else. Excluding self-ownership, land ownership precedes all other property. Homesteading or original appropriation of resources precedes all market exchange. It is impossible to produce anything else without some kind of established ownership on the land which those resources come from. Land ownership comes into existance just like any other thing: by being transformed through labor. So labor does come into play with land just like anything else. Labor does establish ownership when we are talking about original appropriation of previously unowned/unused resources. It just doesn't establish ownership in the way that socialists tend to think it does.
These are some of the reasons why I'm not a georgist. "The Ethics of Liberty" explains this much better than I can.
I was mainly referring to Hoppe's revised account of homesteading as first-use, but the way you phrased it is good as well.
To clarify something that seems to be confusing most here: libertarian socialists, to my knowledge, believe all/most property should be held in common, managed 'democratically'. Hence there is no redistribution, since the commune (or whatever you want to call it) owns everything. They believe this is more conducive to liberty than private ownership. I am not sure why they call it 'socialism' though, when socialism is the transitional stage to communism and is inherently statist. At any rate, based on their logic of communal ownership they should be vying for world government, not anarchy.
Brainpolice:It is impossible to produce anything else without some kind of established ownership on the land which those resources come from.
It is not impossible to separate the products of labor from what pre-exists labor. If I apply my labor to plant and harvest corn, the products of labor are mine whereas the land itself doesn't have to be. My claim to the land is only an individual equal claim not an exclusive claim.
If I were the first human being on the earth I could go anywhere and do anything. Those activities are not abrogated by the addition of others but rather only transformed into an individual equal claim.
Rios9000:each individual room is usually well treated, but the common areas are completely neglected. It's a small scale version of the tragedy of the commons. Only some sort of cohersive state could prevent the common areas from being neglected and abused. So when expanded to an entire society; the choice becomes either state cohersion or an enviromental catastrophe.
This is a false duality. Hardin later wrote a paper called "the tragedy of the unmanaged commons" to clear up the misuse of his original work.
The problem is twofold:
1. the state and governance as legitimate agency are different.
2. collective and common ownership are not the same.
The sole role of governance as legitimate agency is to insure that in acting to access/use what is owned in common one individual does not infringe on the individual equal access claim of any other individual. The common asset must be preserved for future generations by only accessing and using the sustainable yield.
SMacaskill:For Socialism to exist you need a government to do the redistribution of wealth and property. Or else who is going to do the redistribution? I don't think a Libertarian would consistently volunteer to redistribute his property to everyone else whenever he makes a gain. Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron. He is either a Libertarian or a Socialist.
The point is that the orginal socialists (Thomas Hodgkins) wanted to insure distributive justice by looking at predistribution property claims where an individual equal access claim to what is owned in common is to be enforced and thus labor can no longer be separated from the means of production (capital).
WmBGreene: Brainpolice:It is impossible to produce anything else without some kind of established ownership on the land which those resources come from. It is not impossible to separate the products of labor from what pre-exists labor. If I apply my labor to plant and harvest corn, the products of labor are mine whereas the land itself doesn't have to be. My claim to the land is only an individual equal claim not an exclusive claim.
This is absurd. First, how does your planting corn NOT infringe on everyone else's supposed individual equal claim to use the land? This is exactly what Brainpolice is saying. If your theory is correct, then no one can do anything without infringing on the rights of everyone else, or at least not without getting their unanimous permission first.
Second, matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed (nuclear reactions aside). Any product of labor must necessarily consist exclusively of that which pre-existed labor. Labor consists merely in re-arranging or transforming that which pre-existed. You seem to concede that individuals have the exclusive right to the fruits of their labor. Then it follows that individuals have the exclusive right to that which pre-existed labor to the extent that they have transformed it via their labor. And there you have precisely the natural law/Rothbardian theory of property rights in land. If there cannot be exclusive individual property rights in land, there cannot be in anything else either (excepting maybe one's physical person). It's either one or the other - this Georgist distinction between land and non-land leads to nonsense.
tgibson11: WmBGreene: Brainpolice:It is impossible to produce anything else without some kind of established ownership on the land which those resources come from. It is not impossible to separate the products of labor from what pre-exists labor. If I apply my labor to plant and harvest corn, the products of labor are mine whereas the land itself doesn't have to be. My claim to the land is only an individual equal claim not an exclusive claim. This is absurd. First, how does your planting corn NOT infringe on everyone else's supposed individual equal claim to use the land? This is exactly what Brainpolice is saying. If your theory is correct, then no one can do anything without infringing on the rights of everyone else, or at least not without getting their unanimous permission first. Second, matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed (nuclear reactions aside). Any product of labor must necessarily consist exclusively of that which pre-existed labor. Labor consists merely in re-arranging or transforming that which pre-existed. You seem to concede that individuals have the exclusive right to the fruits of their labor. Then it follows that individuals have the exclusive right to that which pre-existed labor to the extent that they have transformed it via their labor. And there you have precisely the natural law/Rothbardian theory of property rights in land. If there cannot be exclusive individual property rights in land, there cannot be in anything else either (excepting maybe one's physical person). It's either one or the other - this Georgist distinction between land and non-land leads to nonsense.
Right. Property is not spontaneously generated out of thin air. All property, in order to initially come into ownership, must involve the transformation of that which has been previously unused, I.E. that which pre-existed labor. Land is not alone in pre-existing labor. Everything that comes from the land is initially in this unused state as well. Everything pre-existed labor. And (nearly/essentially) everything comes from the land. There is no way to own that which comes from the land without first establishing some kind of ownership of that land.
If the geoists were consistant in their false dychotomy, they must oppose all property ownership, because all of it initially pre-existed labor before it was brought into ownership. Strictly speaking, noone "creates" anything. Land, just like everything else, is a "product of labor" to the extent that it is initially transformed. To allude to his corn example, the mere act of planting and harvesting the corn on the land is transformation of the land and requires some kind of individual exercise of ownership over the land which that corn comes from.
I don't know how much more simple I can break it down, and this is starting to get repetitive, but i'll try this one more time. If our premise is that noone can own that which pre-existed labor, then noone can own anything, because everything initially pre-existed labor (and pre-existed the existance of human beings altogether, for that matter). Therefore, geoism is simply inconsistant in that it still allows ownership over everything else, even though ownership over everything else would defy their own premise about that which pre-existed labor.
And, as has been pointed out, it is physically impossible for everyone to exercise their equal quotal share of the land. Individuals cannot be in all places at once. A new born baby in Pakistan cannot realistically exercise their one-six-billionth share of a plot of land in Texas. Therefore, in practise, even an attempt at a Georgist land system will "devolve" into some kind of individual ownership, wether justly aquired or not. I suspect that, in practise, it would lead to something resembling a state (unjustly) allocating land property titles to particular individuals in the name of equal ownership. In short, georgism leads to a system of fuedalism in the name of defying feudalism.
tgibson11:how does your planting corn NOT infringe on everyone else's supposed individual equal claim to use the land?
Has enough and as good been left in common for others?
tgibson11:no one can do anything without infringing on the rights of everyone else, or at least not without getting their unanimous permission first.
Unanimous consent (consensus) is required in collectively (joint) ownership not in common ownership.
tgibson11:it follows that individuals have the exclusive right to that which pre-existed labor to the extent that they have transformed it via their labor.
Yes, so long as they do not economically disadvantage anyone else by their exclusive use because that violates the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded.
tgibson11:If there cannot be exclusive individual property rights in land, there cannot be in anything else either (excepting maybe one's physical person). It's either one or the other
One can only have exclusive use of land to the extent that it does not violate the right of self-ownership of those you exclude. If you do, then it requires an obligation to those you excluded.
WmBGreene:The sole role of governance as legitimate agency is to insure that in acting to access/use what is owned in common one individual does not infringe on the individual equal access claim of any other individual.
The sole role of governance as legitimate agency is to insure that in acting to access/use what is owned in common one individual does not infringe on the individual equal access claim of any other individual.
Institutions built on moral inconsistencies are never legitimate.
Please justify your distinction between land and non-land.
What if I have in my possession the only <any-non-land-good> known to exist. Clearly this does not leave enough or "as good as" for everyone else. Do I have the right to exclusive ownership of it or not?
Exclusive ownership of any good by definition creates an economic disadvantage to everybody else - they would obviously be better off if it belonged to them instead.
Property in the fruits of one's labor is a necessary condition of self-ownership. Property specifically in land is not. One can live quite well without owning any land whatsoever, and many people do.
But really, I would like to know how you justify the distinction between land and non-land (assuming you do). I feel like I'm having to set up straw-men to argue against here.
tgibson11:Please justify your distinction between land and non-land
Without labor a non-land good could not exist. No?
tgibson11:What if I have in my possession the only <any-non-land-good> known to exist.
How did it come into existence as a "good" if not by labor?
tgibson11:Exclusive ownership of any good by definition creates an economic disadvantage to everybody else
Before or after the application of labor?
Distributive justice is only concerned with obligations before the application of labor.
Corrective justice is only concerned with obligations after the application of labor.
tgibson11:Property in the fruits of one's labor is a necessary condition of self-ownership.
Agreed.
tgibson11:Property specifically in land is not. One can live quite well without owning any land whatsoever, and many people do.
Yes. But one literally can not exist without occupying "land" *somewhere* (please don't argue the distinction between needing sustenance to continue to exist and having to occupy a specific location while existing) and if all somewheres are legally occupied you must pay a tribute or be gifted the right to occupy *some* location. Is not a right of self-ownership something we are born with?
WmBGreene:Without labor a non-land good could not exist. No?
Yes, but that is merely defining land vs. non-land. I would like you to justify treating land differently from non-land with respect to property rights. I would say that without labor, property rights in land cannot exist either. I still do not see that you have provided a logical basis for making a distinction, unless you mean to do so with the following...
WmBGreene:But one literally can not exist without occupying "land" *somewhere* (please don't argue the distinction between needing sustenance to continue to exist and having to occupy a specific location while existing) and if all somewheres are legally occupied you must pay a tribute or be gifted the right to occupy *some* location. Is not a right of self-ownership something we are born with?
This is no different than saying: I require food to exist. If all the existing food is owned by others, then that is violating my right of self-ownership. Or a more realistic example - I require a certain drug to cure a life-threatening disease? Again, we come back to the question of why land is different than everything else?
But I think I'm starting to "get it". Am I correct in summarizing your logic as follows?
I would agree on the first point - this seems non-controversial. I would agree on the second point, but I do not consider this relevant to the question at hand - IMO, this is merely the reason why transformation via labor is the correct criteria for establishing property right in land. I disagree with the premise of the third point, that there is any such thing as a right to remain alive.
I think the root of the disagreement may be in the definition of self-ownership. The right of self-ownership includes the right to attempt to maintain one's life via one's own efforts. It does not include the right to remain, or to be kept, alive. If land or space is necessary for me to survive, I have the right to obtain it by homesteading unowned land, and I have the right to exchange my labor or the products thereof with someone else for permission to exist on their land. I do not have the right to be provided with any means of sustenance, land included.