--Here's an unfinished essay I wrote on the issue, I'm hoping someone will lend their time to critique it.
The Smurf
Let us suppose there existed an individual of minute size, let us call this individual the Smurf. Essentially, the Smurf is by all accounts a human, born by parental member of a species of bipedal primates in the family of Hominidae of which we taxonomically call Homo sapiens. Every product of human biology is apparent, yet relative in size to that of 1/15th of a man--or thus above a couple inches. Even complex rationalism and language is apparent with only a reduction is vocal decibel. The who of such a creature is irrelevant to our inquiry; let him possess the aspirations of any 18 year old man. What we care to investigate is to what extent his rights to property are protected and respected (both private and external) and to what extent can he homestead? We will tackle these questions in two parts, self ownership and external ownership of which we will discuss external ownership first.
To own something externally is to either first homestead i.e. original appropriation of property not currently owned or to exchange for it (or possibly inheritance, but this may be one and the same with exchange just). For example, if someone embarks onto a piece of land or article of land, including "nature animals", ferae naturae, that is previously inhabited/unowned, this said individual may in fact occupy and claim ownership of the land by mixing their labor with it. This is a broad and overly used term but serves the current point. The next way to acquire ownership is through exchange by means of either previous ownership or your own labor labor. If they have neither of these prerequisites, meaning they have nothing to offer for exchange, they must either rely on sympathy or there is no exchange. Thus let our Smurf be absent of the first prerequisite (pre-owned property) and enter the market place with the second (labor). Instantly, one would complain that there is little a Smurf can offer in the field of labor, a typical response and one of merit, yet before I yield that the Smurf has less to offer in terms of labor exchange, let me name a few professions that may be interested in his labor
Yet, let me yield the point that our Smurf will not have the ability to offer much in the field of labor, meaning his marginal rate of productivity is well below that of the average individual. Yet, so what? Why would a Smurf 1/15th the size of a normal individual need to consume an equivalent of someone 15 times their size? Wouldn't it be probable that our Smurf would live in a house 1/15th the average, consume a daily caloric intake 1/15th the average, etc, etc. Why should we believe that his rate of productivity would not posses the ability to sustain a "relative" average life[1]? Thus, given the average household of 1500 square feet and an average daily caloric intake of 2000, are little Smurf need only 100ft^2 home and 133 calories to be living at an average means. Furthermore, if the threshold for subsistence is 800 calories a day, than our Smurf need only 53 calories to stay alive. Thus, let us carry our discussion toward a different realm, respect of property.
There are many small creatures 1/15th the size of us that we show no respect for in the realm of property rights. We may be generous, but we need not be and many are not. We can take the tree they live in or food they scavenged furthermore, we may make them food if we wish. It is thus within our realm of ability to do all of these things, but is it within our right? Thus, what is different from dealing with a small human versus a small animal? Or a large animal? Do we show the 500lb buffalo any more respect toward their property than the tiny mouse? If we do it is out of generosity, not respect[2]. We may like one animal over another but this is in no way a universal rule of interaction. So what is different between animals and humans? Simply, it is communication. We engage with other humans in respectful interaction because it is mutually beneficial, it is mutually beneficial because we can delineate the terms of exchange prior to exchange. We know others value estimates because they tell us, not only do we know what they value but we know how much they value it relative to other property. This is not true for other animals. We may know that a dog prefers steak over dry dog food, but how much steak versus how much dog food? There are terms because there is no delineation. The dog, like everyone, would rather have more to less. They would rather have the steak and the dog food, as we would like to have the steak and the hamburger. But if we are in possession of just one of the two items we are happy, maybe not as happy, but satisfied. If another animal, be of any size, enters the picture with an item the previous animal wants, it may either waste resources fighting, chasing or running from the animal or it may just eat its own food items and leave the other animal and its food to itself[3]. If communication were available, the two animals may strike a deal resulting in increased happiness between both animals but since there is no communication, there is no trade. Thus all actions remain zero sum. Yet, how does this supply to our Smurf? Yes it is true that any normal sized individual could take freely from Smurf by sheer size (though you would think that anyone handicapped with that much size differential would arm themselves fairly well) but is it also not true that NBA and NFL players could use their sheer size and speed to take from the majority of the populace the deal with? Do we blame this strictly on compulsory external protection (state cops and military)? Think about the requirements for such a supposition. The modern state did not surface until near the beginning of the fifteenth century associated with the gradual institutional development within Europe. This would mean that prior to the welfare state, social individuals were engaged in relative exchange and communiqué without state financed protection. How would humans, like other primates, have formed complex social networks if there was not a mutual level of trust. Why would two humans ever have began (and continued) initial interaction? Thus, characteristically, individuals of large size, strength or speed have more to gain by trading with smaller, weaker, slower individuals because they reap grater rewards from trade without expending resources to chase down, over power, or kill the smaller individual-the only cost is the terms of trade. The same would apply to our Smurf. Our Smurf may, at first, barter from a safe place of distance and once trust is built allow that distance to shrink. If other individuals enjoy the exchanges made with our Smurf, say they like his freshly picked blueberries and don't wish to spend time looking for them and collecting them their self, they will continue coming back. If they abandon that trust and kill the Smurf to take his daily blueberries, they have now eliminated all future exchange. They will need to find a new trading partner or find them their self. If they kidnap the Smurf, they must invest resources into hiding and restraining him as well as find ways to motivate him to work. The Smurf (if I was him) should have prepared for such a case and have designated a backup plan[4]
Thus, because of communication the Smurf is just as appt to...
[1] Maybe one would argue that he would not possess the productivity to produce at or above subsistence due to the fact that he is exchanging with individuals 15 times his size. Thus, his ability to produce 1/15th the product in 1/15th the time would not allow enough production to justify 1/15th the pay. In a situation like this, when absent of charity or salary based jobs, our Smurf is impoverished. Yet, he is impoverished living off of 1/15th the requirements of subsistence. He need only 1/15th the food, housing, etc. In deed, what is to say that our Smurf needs to barter at all? He may have the ability to live off of forging and gathering.
[2] Though true that a Buffalo may prove a greater foe than the mouse, yet we are not fighting bare handed like Daniel Boone! We are simple showing are dominance via loud noise, gun shots, etc.
[3] Of course for many animals, they are the food and thus no trade is remotely possible because it is by definition zero sum. Thus, a mouse would not trade its life for a piece of the dogs steak because they trade is not beneficial. Though it may be possible that they mouse may trade his life for a specific future of meals, again we don't know because there is no communication to speak of such terms.
[4] Have Brink's Home Security System track his self implanted GPS
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah