I agree that it's absurd, Clayton, but aren't most thought experiments?
I was just trying to say that a property owner, by virtue of owning the land and discriminating who he allows on his property, could conceivably have people enter his property by signing contracts that would waive their rights to PDA protection or libertarian freedom if they have some reward of some type that is more valuable than the protection or the freedom. All I'm saying is that through contractual obligations this seems to pass libertarian muster.
Think of two people who want to duel in a gunfight and they sign a contract that says the loser's family or insurance company or whomever will not sue the winner for murder. This is voluntary, so does this still count as murder? Do these people have the ability to voluntarily waive their right to life, in essence?
Excellent question and it illuminates the root problem. By definition, a dispute is between the parties involved and no one else. Hence, if two people want to settle their dispute through random lottery or a duel or betting or whatever method they choose, that's their business. They do not create a tort against anyone else by settling their dispute in whatever way they choose. If Alan and Bob agree to have a duel and Alan kills Bob, Bob's parents won't have much of a case against Alan if Bob freely showed up to the duel. Note, however, that in the real world, duels always occurred in a neutral location. Inviting someone to your property in order to have a duel with them is just a bad idea... makes it look a lot like murder.
Opting out of arbitration is unthinkable in modern society because we are compelled by the State (through the threat of force) to patronize the State's courts. But it regularly occurred in older times. This is the reason that dueling is virtually inconceivable to the modern mind.
The defining difference between dueling and the thought-experiment I gave is that dueling is a means of settling a dispute, where there was no dispute being settled in the thought-experiment. Alan was just trying to murder Bob and was being sly about it. Duelling is only possible with a certain legal framework that makes it possible. This is why duelling really can't exist today, there's no way to enforce the rules of the game. If somebody cheats, it's no more illegal than if they don't cheat. Instead of duels, we have drive-by shootings... because we're so much more civilized today.
Clayton -
Now I'm getting a better picture. The poison example is certainly ridiculous. What I still don't get is at what point it becomes ridiculous by proprietarian standards. Imagine a contract signed that states, "By entering on my property you are subject to the customs and manners that I accept and acknowledge, and may face force upon the disobedience of my orders."
If it's just pretentious way of saying you'll eject someone from your property under these conditions but not otherwise (for example, the rules under which a landlord rents his property to a tenant), then it's fine. The point is that the boundaries of your property are the limit at which you can exercise force. Just because a person is on top of your property (your land), that doesn't make his body your property. You certainly have a right to remove him from your property - forcibly, if necessary, since once he refuses to willingly remove himself, he has begun aggressing against your property rights - but your rights in your property extend no further than the boundaries of your property.
The example, until the poison one, has been of a large land owner's ability to make pseudo-laws. Your rejection of it and poison example somewhat negates the idea of exclusive private ownership and contract.
No, it doesn't, it just more strictly delimits the extents of private ownership and contract. You can't own just anything. You can't contract just anything. This has always been the case. You can't own another human being because he can rightfully decide to resist your "ownership" at any time. If a slave escapes and you try to recapture him by suing him, he would be stupid to agree to become your slave again rather than accept that there exists a state of open conflict between you and him. He would necessarily prefer open conflict. Hence, a contract to the effect "You now own me from henceforth and forevermore and I must do everything you say no matter what" is just silly.
I don't see how your statement that signing a contract against one's interest is absurd is really supportive of private ownership.
It's not just that it's against one's interests but that it is necessarily preferable to repudiate the contract and accept a state of open conflict to abiding by the terms of the contract or negotiating a settlement based on the terms of the contract. Such contracts are absurd. Only contracts which specify terms that are less odious than open conflict resulting from repudiation of the terms of the contract are realistic and meaningful.
The exact same could be said of labor contracts that state there are harmful chemicals in the factory that may kill you. By that token wouldn't the contract be null?
Well, let's say that I sign a contract stating that I will perform some dangerous work in exchange for such-and-such pay. Further, let's say that I didn't fully understand just how dangerous it really was (as a result of my own failure to understand, not as a result of misrepresentation on the employer's part which would be fraud and tortious). Let's say there's a 90% chance I will die from the work (e.g. from nuclear radiation). So, I renege on the contract. Now, the employer want to sue me saying that I must do the work because I agreed to do the work and I've been paid to do it. However, I'd much rather be in a state of open conflict with the employer where there is only a small probability that I will die than accept a 90% chance of dying, so there's no way I'm going to agree to abide by the terms of the contract. This means the employer should have thought twice before drafting such a contract and probably should have put a clause specifying what happens in case I renege. If there's no clause, there's nothing the employer can do, he can only try to get his PDA to attack me or try to persuade my PDA to turn me over or something like that. If he had foresight (and he should have), he would have added a clause that in case of non-performance, I must return the money I was paid, in which case, that becomes a valid property claim which can be handled through a separate lawsuit, if necessary.
Another point I just thought of... I see little distinction between "contracts that permit violation of property rights" and serfdom. Everyone understood the rights and responsibilities of lords and serfs in medieval Europe, so there might as well have been a written contract between the serfs and their lord (the serfs couldn't read or write anyway... and most lords couldn't, either). Yet the position of the lord with respect to the serfs is clearly expropriatory and aggressive - it is indistinguishable from the relation between a State and its subjects.
Well, not that the state actually does anything, but heads of state are supposed to be prosecuted for their crimes, whereas kings were the law. Obviously there's enough corruption so that the state is unaccountable, but in principal it's different.
in principal it's different.
Except that the job which heads of state are supposed to do is itself criminal, even if they do it in a "non-corrupt" way.
No argument here.
Eric080:Ok, well let's say that a rich tycoon owns a large chunk of contiguous land. He is able to offer a lot of well-paying jobs because he is so rich. Now he bought the land so he is considered to be its rightful owner. And he will let you onto his property with the sole condition that you have to abide by his laws and he has a law saying that non-retaliatory force is ok. Now it seems to me that, if all rights are property rights, then this should be a fine arrangement because it stems from consent of the people joining.
If non-retaliatory force is okay, then presumably that includes keeping people from leaving. This, then, amounts to a slavery contract - which is considered unenforceable by libertarian standards.
On the other hand, if non-retaliatory force is okay, then presumably that includes non-retaliatory force against the tycoon himself. I think he'd be foolish, at best, to allow for such a thing. Furthermore, if he tried to defend himself from someone else who's on his land and trying to kill him, he's technically violating the terms of his own contract. Again I think this essentially renders the contract unenforceable.
Eric080:Now ignoring the logistics (who would voluntarily enter such a society?), it seems to me that if a PDA is going to fight aggression on people's behalf, then they can't do anything about this because the arrangement is consentual. This is similar to the voluntary slavery contract hypothetical. This would be an instance where it seems to me that there is a monopoly on the use of force within the tycoon's borders but that the agreement is non-coercive (because the tycoon isn't forcing anybody to join his city).
A contract which a person can't break out of is not a voluntary contract IMO. The so-called American Civil War involved a statist analogy to this situation.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Well technically the tycoon could limit the law to his subjects; he could introduce a double-standard to protect himself. It is very ad hoc, but that is the whole point of stipulating every bit of minutiae in the contract for the sake of this thought experiment.
I agree though with your Civil War point. So what you guys are saying is that a contractual obligation isn't absolute? You're saying that if one party explicitly makes it known that he wishes to break the contract off at a later date and the other party continues forcing them in the relationship that this amounts to coercion? That sounds fair to me.
Holy shit. Have I somehow created an alias and started posting in my sleep?
The OP makes great points. Let me present a more detailed scenario. Say a man and a woman are traveling and come across a man who owns a large farm. The man invites them in and says that they can stay the night. The next day the couple decides that they would like to stay there permanently. A week later the man approaches them and says, "give me $50 or leave." The couple decide to pay the money so that they can stay. Every week the man makes this same request and the couple agrees to pay. The landlord establishes rules in writing.
The couple have a baby. The baby grows up to become a man. His parents die but he continues to pay the rent. One day he thinks to himself, "wait a minute, I've never signed a contract with the landlord. Therefore, he can't justly collect rent from me!" So the man decides to stop paying his rent. The landlord gets very angry, so when he stops paying his rent the landlord starts taking the money from the man's drawer. "Rent is theft!" screams the man. The landlord reminds him that if he doesn't want to abide by the rules, he's always free to leave.
Is the landlord justified in confiscating the rent money when his tenant refuses to leave? How is this scenario different from that of a citizen and a state? If ease of leaving is the issue, what if this scenario occurred on a private island, a cruise ship, or and oil rig? Surely those things are just as hard to leave as a state. City's are just as easy to leave as an apartment is. Are taxes imposed by a city just and consensual?
I haven't really seen an answer beyond the "love it or leave it" argument with the addendum that it will magically be easier to leave and ignorance that people tend to grow fond of the places in which they live.
Fool on the Hill, no. The man doesn't have a right to stay on the farmer's property if it is actually the farmer's property. Again, the State's claim to the land is what is being challenged. They superimpose themselves on a large web of private property. Of course, none of us own any item or any private property since we pay sales or property taxes (essentially rent).
But this man, similar to the poison example, is in a case where it is preferable to be in a state of open conflict.
Let's take the example back in history a bit. Once upon a time the land was a vacant, unhomesteaded area. The current landlord's grandfather bought this plot of land from the government (of course this is illegitimate, but he's going to be the one to homestead it, right?). So one day the grandfather is surveying his newly bought land when he sees some kids playing on it. He yells at them, "hey kids, get off my land!" The kids are afraid the grandfather might use force on them or call the police so they leave. Next before doing any work on the land himself, the grandfather hires someone to build a house on the land. So the construction workers homestead the land and give the house to the grandfather, which makes it his property. Flash forward to the present where the tenant is still screaming that he has a right to live there.
One day a descendent of the construction worker comes by and says, "my grandfather homesteaded this house before you had legitimate proerty rights over it. Therefore, it's my house!"
The grandfather says, "but your grandfather and I had a deal. He agreed that the finished house would be mine."
"Oh," says the man, "but I have a witness that said that you used the threat of force to keep some kids off of land you hadn't yet owned. You know what you are? You're a state and all state land is illegitimate! You must give up all of your possessions!"
Does the landlord still have the right to charge rent and evict his tenant? Who is the rightful owner of the house?
The more I think about it, Clayton, the more your argument destroys proprietarianism.
Anyone who does not have a legitimate claim, by your standards, to property is in a situation where it's preferable to be in open conflict.
CENSORED
Your timeline doesn't even make sense. He bought the land with his own money, so it was his at the moment of transaction. You say the workers are "homesteading" the land, but all they would be doing in this scenario is performing a service on the grandfather's property.
1. Nobody ever said that any thing a boss directs is wise or efficient or utilitarian or moral.
2. Unions can work as long as they are good for bargaining (equivalent of haggling). No libertarians are against worker's demanding certain rights lest they withhold their work from the business owner. They are against artificial privileges granted by political means to unions at the expense of the business owner.
While it's supposed to be a parody of some sort, parodies are only good so far as they reflect something of substance.
Only if he can certainly win every fight against all challengers, that is, he'd have to be a Leviathan. You're forgetting the fact of uncertainty - two men of roughly equal size, strength and fitness each have about a 50% chance of winning a direct, physical conflict. And any two men drawn at random will be close to average size, strenght and fitness with high probability. Hence, uncertainty is the dominant factor in almost all conflicts. This is the only reason people ever began to arbitrate disputes in the first place. If you steal my flint knife and I challenge you to a fight over it if you don't give it back, you have to ask yourself whether the chance of winning the fight and keeping the knife is worth the chance of losing the fight (and, possibly, your life) and losing at least the knife and whatever else I choose to take from you. The choice to fight represents a calculation (possibly mistaken) on your part that you can win with high enough probability to justify betting your life and other property against the stolen property.
He bought unhomesteaded land from the state. According to proprietarianism, the state doesn't have the right to make such a sale--or else you would have to accept them as a legitimate property owner. It would be like selling someone the moon. Let me quote Rothbard:
In the United States, we have been fortunate enough to largely escape continuing aggression in land titles. It is true that originally the English Crown gave land titles unjustly to favored persons (for example, the territory roughly of New York State to the ownership of the Duke of York), but fortunately these grantees were interested enough in quick returns to subdivide and sell their lands to the actual settlers. As soon as the settlers purchased their land, their titles were legitimate, and so were the titles of all those who inherited or purchased them. Later on, the United States government unfortunately laid claim to all virgin land as the "public domain," and then unjustly sold the land to speculators who had not earned a homestead title. But eventually these speculators sold the land to the actual settlers, and from then on, the land title was proper and legitimate.
Rothbard clearly says that these "favored persons" never legitimately owned the land. If they weren't legitimate owners, how could the grandfather in my example be?
Now you're changing what you've said, Clayton.
"Bob is simply noting that he can do no worse than open conflict and that Alan's asking him to accept the terms of a contract...At all points, Bob would prefer open conflict to abiding by the terms of a contract which specifies he must accept his own murder or attempted murder. Asking someone to sign such a contract is pointless and absurd."
In the example given by Fool On the Hill, we have a man who must accept theft if he wants to stay in his home, the place he grew up in and has lived his entire life. He is in a better place with open conflict, where he may or may not win, than in court where he will most certainly lose. It is in no way reasonable for him to accept the terms of the landlord, especially if there are other tenants that feel the same way (this entire example reminds me of the Rent War in New York).
Now, Eric080,
"No libertarians are against worker's demanding certain rights lest they withhold their work from the business owner."
1. The person who coined the term libertarian was Dejacque, a French anarcho-communist. So let's not get ahead of ourselves saying "all libertarians this," or "no libertarians that."
2. So laborers can't go on strike in your idea of an anarcho-capitalist society? How exactly would that work out without the use of force? The term "forced labor" springs to mind, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Now see, that sounds like a false privilege, non-retaliatory force, and robbery of self-ownership and will if I've ever heard of it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Now you're changing what you've said, Clayton. "Bob is simply noting that he can do no worse than open conflict and that Alan's asking him to accept the terms of a contract...At all points, Bob would prefer open conflict to abiding by the terms of a contract which specifies he must accept his own murder or attempted murder. Asking someone to sign such a contract is pointless and absurd."
Hmm, I must be doing a poor job communicating my thoughts because that quote reinforces what I said above.
Scenario A: Bob steals Alan's $2000 TV. Alan confronts Bob and says, "Give me back my TV or I'll fight you." Bob considers his alternatives:
A.1) Bob fights Alan and wins, gets to keep the $2000 TV
A.2) Bob fights Alan and loses... he is dead and cannot enjoy the $2000 TV
A.3) Bob gives Alan his TV back and avoids a fight
Bob looks Alan over and figures he has a 50% chance of winning against him, since they are both of relatively equal size, strength, athleticism, etc. If Bob chooses option A.2, he is essentially valuating his life at $1000 ( $2000 * 50% chance of living to enjoy it ). This is true even if Alan doesn't have the guts to follow through on his threat to fight Bob, as long as Bob can't tell that Alan is insincere.
Scenario B: Alan tries to poison Bob with Bob's (insincere) contractual consent, Bob later "reneges" on this contract. Alan is suing for the right to follow through on the terms of the contract, he is asking that Bob swallow the remainder of the poison as the contract stated, otherwise he will fight Bob.
B.1) Bob fights Alan and loses - in this case, he is no better off than if he had just swallowed the poison as requested
B.2) Bob fights Alan and wins - in this case, he is better off than if he had swallowed the poison
B.3) Bob willingly drinks the poison and dies
Now, this case is completely different than the one before. If he chooses to cooperate peacefully, he will certainly die. If, however, he chooses to fight for his life, he has a 50% chance of winning (his own estimate). This is true even if Alan is completely sincere and will follow through on his threat to fight Bob. While Bob might die while fighting Alan if he chooses to fight Alan, it's only a 50% chance as compared to the 100% chance of death if he willingly drinks the poison. A 50% chance of death is certainly preferable to a 100% chance of death even though it's not preferable to a 50% chance of keeping a $2000 TV (at least, I would never choose to risk my life for $2000 at 50% odds).
Yeah, you're still not making sense. Back to the farm example:
The son of the original couple will lose if he peacefully cooperates 100% of the time. How is that different?
I really don't like the farm example because I think it's got too many moving parts and actually involves a lot of other legal issues.
Can you please point out what is not making sense and I will try to clarify?
Basically, anyone making a claim contrary to the proprietarian system in which they face the use of force against them anyway is better off taking the risk of resisting.
The only way these people could be kept from acting according to their will and in compliance with this property system would be to always out muscle them to the point where they don't try. Even then, people have still fought when all the odds were stacked against them.
Eric080:Well technically the tycoon could limit the law to his subjects; he could introduce a double-standard to protect himself. It is very ad hoc, but that is the whole point of stipulating every bit of minutiae in the contract for the sake of this thought experiment.
Of course, but in your original example, you made no such stipulation. You simply hypothesized that the contract had a clause allowing non-retaliatory force. I took that to mean non-retaliatory force per se.
Introducing a double-standard after the fact would require a new agreement. Can he guarantee that everyone who agreed to the original contract will now agree to the new one?
Eric080:I agree though with your Civil War point. So what you guys are saying is that a contractual obligation isn't absolute? You're saying that if one party explicitly makes it known that he wishes to break the contract off at a later date and the other party continues forcing them in the relationship that this amounts to coercion? That sounds fair to me.
Yes, that's what I'm saying, at least. Any contractual obligation that is considered to be absolute is a violation of self-ownership. The more I think about it, the more I see statism as being fundamentally based upon such violation.
Fool on the Hill:Holy shit. Have I somehow created an alias and started posting in my sleep? The OP makes great points. Let me present a more detailed scenario. Say a man and a woman are traveling and come across a man who owns a large farm. The man invites them in and says that they can stay the night. The next day the couple decides that they would like to stay there permanently. A week later the man approaches them and says, "give me $50 or leave." The couple decide to pay the money so that they can stay. Every week the man makes this same request and the couple agrees to pay. The landlord establishes rules in writing. The couple have a baby. The baby grows up to become a man. His parents die but he continues to pay the rent. One day he thinks to himself, "wait a minute, I've never signed a contract with the landlord. Therefore, he can't justly collect rent from me!" So the man decides to stop paying his rent. The landlord gets very angry, so when he stops paying his rent the landlord starts taking the money from the man's drawer. "Rent is theft!" screams the man. The landlord reminds him that if he doesn't want to abide by the rules, he's always free to leave. Is the landlord justified in confiscating the rent money when his tenant refuses to leave? How is this scenario different from that of a citizen and a state? If ease of leaving is the issue, what if this scenario occurred on a private island, a cruise ship, or and oil rig? Surely those things are just as hard to leave as a state. City's are just as easy to leave as an apartment is. Are taxes imposed by a city just and consensual?
I would argue that, no, the landlord is certainly not justified in confiscating the rent money when the descendant tenant refuses to leave. However, the descendant tenant also has no right to stay there, as he doesn't own the land. What I think the descendant tenant is justified in doing is getting back the money he had previously paid in rent - the landowner effectively stole it from him by fraud.
The difference between the above example and a state is, in a word, legitimacy. Anarcho-capitalists such as myself consider any state claims of ownership to be illegitimate. It has nothing to do with perceived ease or difficulty of leaving.
Fool on the Hill:Let's take the example back in history a bit. Once upon a time the land was a vacant, unhomesteaded area. The current landlord's grandfather bought this plot of land from the government (of course this is illegitimate, but he's going to be the one to homestead it, right?). So one day the grandfather is surveying his newly bought land when he sees some kids playing on it. He yells at them, "hey kids, get off my land!" The kids are afraid the grandfather might use force on them or call the police so they leave. Next before doing any work on the land himself, the grandfather hires someone to build a house on the land. So the construction workers homestead the land and give the house to the grandfather, which makes it his property. Flash forward to the present where the tenant is still screaming that he has a right to live there. One day a descendent of the construction worker comes by and says, "my grandfather homesteaded this house before you had legitimate proerty rights over it. Therefore, it's my house!" The grandfather says, "but your grandfather and I had a deal. He agreed that the finished house would be mine." "Oh," says the man, "but I have a witness that said that you used the threat of force to keep some kids off of land you hadn't yet owned. You know what you are? You're a state and all state land is illegitimate! You must give up all of your possessions!" Does the landlord still have the right to charge rent and evict his tenant? Who is the rightful owner of the house?
The landlord's grandfather made no threat of force against the kids. He simply told them to leave, and appealed to the notion that he owned the land. The kids apparently believed this, so they left. Where was there any threat of force involved?
In my opinion, the current landlord is the rightful owner of the house. Although one could say that his grandfather purchased the land from the government, one could also say that what he really did was pay off the government so that it wouldn't send people to force him off of the land in the future. The construction workers were technically the initial collective homesteaders of the land, but per their agreement with the current landlord's grandfather, they ceded all claims of ownership to him.
Moving forward to the present day in this scenario, I'd say the descendant tenant still has a right to get back the rent he previously paid, given the lack of agreement with the landlord, and the landlord has a right to get back the money his grandfather paid the government for the land.
Birthday Pony:The more I think about it, Clayton, the more your argument destroys proprietarianism. Anyone who does not have a legitimate claim, by your standards, to property is in a situation where it's preferable to be in open conflict.
By that reasoning, we should all be trying to steal as much as we can from each other, all the time. Obviously this is not the case.
By saying that the tenant has no right to stay there, you mean the landlord has a right to evict him? Is the tenant justified in getting back just the money the landlord confiscated or also the money he paid him when the landlord every week said to him, "pay me $50 or leave"?
But the details that I added in my subsequent post seem to make the landlord's ownership just as illegitimate as the states. One reason I hear as to why the state can't own anything is because they have claimed ownership over unhomesteaded land. The landlord's grandfather claimed ownership over the land before he homesteaded it. Another reason I hear is that the state hasn't homesteaded the land themselves. However, if the landlord can contract with the construction workers to homestead the land for him, why can't the state contract with its subjects to homestead the land for it?
Scenario A: Bob steals Alan's $2000 TV. Alan confronts Bob and says, "Give me back my TV or I'll fight you." Bob considers his alternatives: A.1) Bob fights Alan and wins, gets to keep the $2000 TV A.2) Bob fights Alan and loses... he is dead and cannot enjoy the $2000 TV A.3) Bob gives Alan his TV back and avoids a fight
You're skipping ahead and missing a key alternative:
A. 4) Alan let's Bob take the TV
If the the chances of winning the fight for both are 50%, then it doesn't seem any more reasonable for Bob to let Alan have the TV than for Alan to let Bob have the TV. The risk that Alan takes to defend his TV and the risk that Bob takes by trying to steal the TV are exactly the same. Thus, if avoiding a confrontation is the reason for upholding the contract on Bob's part, then avoiding a confrontation is a reason for not enforcing a contract on Alan's part. Bob has no more incentive to respect the contract than Alan does to enforce it.
Fool on the Hill:By saying that the tenant has no right to stay there, you mean the landlord has a right to evict him? Is the tenant justified in getting back just the money the landlord confiscated or also the money he paid him when the landlord every week said to him, "pay me $50 or leave"?
Yes, I'd say the landlord has a right to evict him. My assumption regarding the descendant tenant was that the landlord never told him "Pay me $50 or leave" every week - the descendant tenant simply paid the landlord $50 a week because that's what his parents did, per their agreement. Had the landlord indeed said that to the descendant tenant every week, then I don't think the tenant has any recourse to that money.
What the state does is akin to someone going to the landlord and telling him to pay up $50 or the landlord will be forced off of his own land. Again, the primary issue here is the legitimacy of ownership.
Fool on the Hill:But the details that I added in my subsequent post seem to make the landlord's ownership just as illegitimate as the states. One reason I hear as to why the state can't own anything is because they have claimed ownership over unhomesteaded land. The landlord's grandfather claimed ownership over the land before he homesteaded it. Another reason I hear is that the state hasn't homesteaded the land themselves. However, if the landlord can contract with the construction workers to homestead the land for him, why can't the state contract with its subjects to homestead the land for it?
I, for one, never said that the state can't own anything. If the state never engaged in systematically aggressive practices against people, it would no longer be a state - it would just be another business. Whether it's still called "the state" at that point is moot.
On the other hand, I don't consider warding off others from de facto unowned resources to be morally wrong. All rights, including property rights, amount to claims. If you and I both see an unowned apple tree, and I tell you to stay away from it because it's mine, then if you acquiesce to my demand, I now de facto own the apple tree. Otherwise, if you don't acquiesce to my demand, then the ownership of the apple tree is still in question, and we might fight over it. Or we might agree to let each other use it in certain ways, thus establishing joint ownership of it.
You're skipping ahead and missing a key alternative: A. 4) Alan let's Bob take the TV If the the chances of winning the fight for both are 50%, then it doesn't seem any more reasonable for Bob to let Alan have the TV than for Alan to let Bob have the TV. The risk that Alan takes to defend his TV and the risk that Bob takes by trying to steal the TV are exactly the same. Thus, if avoiding a confrontation is the reason for upholding the contract on Bob's part, then avoiding a confrontation is a reason for not enforcing a contract on Alan's part. Bob has no more incentive to respect the contract than Alan does to enforce it.
I'm not skipping anything. A.4 is not Bob's choice to make. I'm not comparing Alan versus Bob in my post, I'm comparing Bob's choices under Scenario A and Scenario B. The question of why it is that property owners are (apparently) more willing to take the risk to enforce their property rights than expropriators are willing to take the risk to keep their expropriated property is an interesting question but not relevant to this discussion. David Friedman gives his answer to the problem here.
The tenant in my example lives in a house separate from the landlord's house, which the landlord's grandfather hired someone to build but which he nor his descendants ever entered. The tenant claims that it's his house just as a proprietarian claims to have sovereignty over his land and not the state.
Are you saying that all states necessarily at all times in all place engage in systematically aggressive practices against people?
So since the British Empire claimed sovereignty (i.e. ownership) over the 13 American Colonies and the people who immigrated there acquiesced and acknowledged the Brtitish claim over the area, does this not mean that they owned it de facto and legitimately? Are not the people moving there homesteading the land and then agreeing to give it to the King in the same way that the construction workers are building a house and giving it to the landlord in my example? And if they agreed to let the King have ownership, then isn't the protestations of their descendants over "taxation without representation" analogous in the same way that the tenant's cries of "rent is theft!" is in my example? In my example, the landlord systematically aggressed against the tenant by confiscating his money. And yet you say that the landlord is still entitled to his property, but when a state employs the same systematic aggression they somehow must forfeit their property?
If the landlord signed an agreement with the workers saying that they'd work the land for a wage but that the land would ultimately belong to him then he is no way acting like a state, which would simply take the land. This is very simple property law, and based on your attitude and red harring attacks on Mises' view of unions I'd have to say that you're dragging out this argument just to be difficult.
First of all, you are putting words in the mouth of the person you're quoting; he never said "at all times in all places", you made that an addendum to try and make his position look ridiculous and thus easier to defeat. But I would certainly have to agree with the original statement. While not everything the state does is aggression (e.g. sending a diplomat to a foreign country), it is always engaged in aggression (e.g. taxation, warfare, public domain, etc).
So since the British Empire claimed sovereignty (i.e. ownership) over the 13 American Colonies and the people who immigrated there acquiesced and acknowledged the Brtitish claim over the area, does this not mean that they owned it de facto and legitimately?
You are completely misunderstanding his point. For his apple tree analogy, ownership is not established when person A leaves after being told off by person B. Ownership is established after this occurs, when person B then takes the tree as his own.
So if I'm in the 18th century and I say, "Don't go to America, it's mine", and the rest of the world decides not to, I don't own the continent. It is when I cultivate and maintain the entire continent that it then becomes my property. Until that happens the land is up for grabs.
Are not the people moving there homesteading the land and then agreeing to give it to the King in the same way that the construction workers are building a house and giving it to the landlord in my example?
Did the Crown truly own the land in the first place? Did every colonist or firm sign a contract with the British Empire?
And if they agreed to let the King have ownership, then isn't the protestations of their descendants over "taxation without representation" analogous in the same way that the tenant's cries of "rent is theft!" is in my example?
You are making huge leaps in logic and rewriting history. Never did the colonists contractually give their land to the Royal Family, while the tenant does have a contract with his or her landlord.
In my example, the landlord systematically aggressed against the tenant by confiscating his money.
If the tenant agreed to pay the $50 then nothing was stolen. If the tenant refuses to pay the rent and doesn't leave the landlord's property, then he is a thief and can be evicted. If the landlord, by gunpoint, is demanding that the tenant give him $50 a week then obviously the landlord is engaging in theft. Why is this so hard to understand?
And yet you say that the landlord is still entitled to his property, but when a state employs the same systematic aggression they somehow must forfeit their property?
The last dozen or so posts have been explaining to you precisely how it isn't the same.
Fool on the Hill:The tenant in my example lives in a house separate from the landlord's house, which the landlord's grandfather hired someone to build but which he nor his descendants ever entered. The tenant claims that it's his house just as a proprietarian claims to have sovereignty over his land and not the state.
As far as I can tell, you didn't indicate any of this in any of your previous posts. So at best, you simply forgot to include these qualifications, even though you'd thought of them. At worst, you're deliberately moving the goalposts so that you can continue to feel like the "winner" in this thread.
With that out of the way, I wouldn't consider the descendant tenant to have any claim of ownership over the house he lives in. Once again, the construction workers who built the house (and thus collectively homesteaded it) did so with the understanding that ownership of the house would be transferred to the landlord's grandfather. Furthermore, this ownership was transferred in exchange for the wages/salaries paid to the construction workers. Thus the landlord's grandfather obtained ownership of the house after it was built, at the very latest. Presumably he passed ownership of it on to his son, who passed it on to his own son (the current landlord). Whether any of them ever set foot in the house is irrelevant IMO. Then again, I don't subscribe to the occupation-and-use theory of ownership.
Fool on the Hill:Are you saying that all states necessarily at all times in all place engage in systematically aggressive practices against people?
Yes, by definition.
Fool on the Hill:So since the British Empire claimed sovereignty (i.e. ownership) over the 13 American Colonies and the people who immigrated there acquiesced and acknowledged the Brtitish claim over the area, does this not mean that they owned it de facto and legitimately?
Exactly how did everyone who immigrated there necessarily acquiesce and acknowledge the British claim over the area?
Fool on the Hill:Are not the people moving there homesteading the land and then agreeing to give it to the King in the same way that the construction workers are building a house and giving it to the landlord in my example?
I don't understand the part about "and then agreeing to give it to the King". Can you please explain what you mean by this?
Fool on the Hill:And if they agreed to let the King have ownership, then isn't the protestations of their descendants over "taxation without representation" analogous in the same way that the tenant's cries of "rent is theft!" is in my example? In my example, the landlordsystematically aggressed against the tenant by confiscating his money. And yet you say that the landlord is still entitled to his property, but when a state employs the same systematic aggression they somehow must forfeit their property?
If I steal your car, do you think that means I forefeit all of my property?
I can't address your question without understanding how people who homesteaded land in the 13 Colonies subsequently "gave it to the King". But I think you're trying to claim that the tenant in your example homesteaded the house he was renting, when I'm claiming that he didn't. I make that claim for two reasons. First, the house was already homesteaded by others (the construction workers who built it), who then transferred it to another individual (the landlord's grandfather) in exchange for money. Second, the current landlord, who inherited the house, never transferred ownership of it to the tenant.
At the heart of our dispute, however, are the premises for establishing ownership. You take occupation-and-use as your premises thereof, whereas I do not. Since these are premises, and not conclusions, we can't prove one or the other wrong. We can only accept or reject each other's premises. Obviously, I reject yours.
"By that reasoning, we should all be trying to steal as much as we can from each other, all the time. Obviously this is not the case."
It's not always reasonable to steal. Sometimes you would be clearly overpowered. However, Clayton made the distinction that a contract in which someone is in no better position than if they were simply in open conflict is null. When you realize you're going to lose, it's best to just agree and lose. But anyone who thinks they have a shot at winning would prefer open conflict, and according to Clayton's principal they have a right to do so.
But anyone who thinks they have a shot at winning would prefer open conflict, and according to Clayton's principal they have a right to do so.
No, that's really not what I'm saying. We're missing some theoretical foundations here. If I have time later, I'll post a thread on this since it is definitely a topic worth exploring in more depth. I'm trying to delineate the limits of legal negotiation and how this interacts with the viability of contracts which, in turn, determines what sorts of contracts are legally enforceable.
Birthday Pony:It's not always reasonable to steal. Sometimes you would be clearly overpowered.
So would you say it's reasonable to steal the next time I'm in a Walgreens? Because I think I could overpower the store clerk. Also, I'll have the element of surprise on my side.
Birthday Pony:However, Clayton made the distinction that a contract in which someone is in no better position than if they were simply in open conflict is null. When you realize you're going to lose, it's best to just agree and lose. But anyone who thinks they have a shot at winning would prefer open conflict, and according to Clayton's principal they have a right to do so.
Then there would never be any contracts - only surrender by the weaker to the stronger. Hobbes was right after all!
He kicked off people before he legitimately owned it. Is that not simply taking it in the same way that the state does?
I didn't say that's what he meant. I was asking if it was. And guess what, it was (see post below yours)!
You are completely misunderstanding his point. For his apple tree analogy, ownership is not established when person A leaves after being told off by person B. Ownership is established after this occurs, when person B then takes the tree as his own. So if I'm in the 18th century and I say, "Don't go to America, it's mine", and the rest of the world decides not to, I don't own the continent. It is when I cultivate and maintain the entire continent that it then becomes my property. Until that happens the land is up for grabs.
OK, this is actually what I was initially assuming.
But it doesn't matter if they owned it in the first place. The landlord in my example didn't own it before he hired the construction workers. He hired five construction workers. Only one of them signed an agreement. The one who signed the contract that he was going to get other laborers to help him. The construction worker descendant who now claims ownership over the house was one of the ones who didn't sign the contract. Does that make his claim more valid?
Nope. The tenant never signed a contract with the landlord. Does that mean the landlord can't ask him to pay or leave?
What if the landlord points the gun at the tenant and says, "pay me $50 or leave the house"? That's what the government does. It won't force you to pay property taxes if you leave the country. If the landlord isn't a thief, then how is the government?