If you have a protection contract for a property, that is equivalent to a title to that property.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:If you have a protection contract for a property, that is equivalent to a title to that property.
Obviously it is not in the interest of the protection agency to protect false claims.
Stranger:Obviously it is not in the interest of the protection agency to protect false claims.
Libertas est Veritas: Stranger:Obviously it is not in the interest of the protection agency to protect false claims. Why not? How do they judge a claim to be false?
That's their business. The point is that protecting a swindler increases their risk.
Stranger:The point is that protecting a swindler increases their risk.
You're asking for too much. I don't know how insurers know if someone is a good risk or not. They just know.
Stranger:You're asking for too much.
The ironi with your question, Libertas est veritas, is that capitalism as a system that is supposed to protect ownership is the only reason to why we have the technology to centralize in the first place, and yet you find it hard to imagine that the very same people who invent computers, printingpresses, filecabinets, banks, insurances would be unable to organize for them self?
I thought there would be agencies devoted to handling claims to land. At least I remember passing reference to these in The Market for Liberty, but it's been a while since I've read it. I believe private firms already handle this role. At any rate, it's more efficient for a firm to insure it's not mistaken in protecting a claim to land than finding out later it's protecting a client who acted inappropriately, and it thereby incurring high costs and a bad reputation.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Libertas est Veritas: Stranger:You're asking for too much. That is not my intention. I am merely trying to understand how ownership is proved. For example, if you don't have some centralized system of records of land ownership, how do you prevent fraud and mistakes, like two lots of land overlapping?
You don't need video recrords and DNA to prove someone guilty in court. All you need are witnesses.
Magnus:yet you find it hard to imagine that the very same people who invent computers, printingpresses, filecabinets, banks, insurances would be unable to organize for them self?
Stranger:You don't need video recrords and DNA to prove someone guilty in court. All you need are witnesses.
If we could answer this question, central planning would also be possible. Neither can be done because no single mind possesses the genius and entreprenuerial skill that the market brings to bear upon the problem. All that can be said with certainty at this point is that the final scheme of things will be determined by the desires of consumers as best served by the most efficient competitors.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46:If we could answer this question, central planning would also be possible.
Libertas est Veritas:The main problem that I see, be it competing courts or competing firms, is that how will overlapping claims be prevented or resolved?
How exactly does an overlapping claim arise?
Stranger:How exactly does an overlapping claim arise?
Well I imagine land certification would happen the same way any other private certification agencies works on the market. Lets say in order to lower it's cost and to prevent needless fights a protection agency will keep records on file but to cover its bases it also asks for an independent agency to certify the land ownership, an agency that has a vested interest in it's reputation since it wants the courts to trust it (because the courts want to be taken as legitimate too). Right now the state takes care of the land registration but it could potentially be taken up by private firms paid in fees on the market by the protection agencies. This is how most consumer protection agencies operate and the more successfull ones get more business by firms because they are viewed as reliable (and capable of being sued) by the consumer. This helps firms sell their products since they bring it before a third party and lower their liability, and it helps consumers by raising the standard of their purchase and protecting themselves from harm. The land certification agency will make more money by being trust worthy and less apt to be sued by being honest about their work.
Libertas est Veritas: Stranger:How exactly does an overlapping claim arise? Mistake, fraud, etc. I don't think the why is essential, but let's say I want to buy land. How do I make sure that the person selling me the land actually owns it?
Call up your insurance and ask them if they'll cover you.
Libertas est Veritas: Magnus:yet you find it hard to imagine that the very same people who invent computers, printingpresses, filecabinets, banks, insurances would be unable to organize for them self?No. I am trying to understand the mechanism. How do you verify that someone owns a certain piece of land?
How do you verify that x owns the watch he claims y stole from him? You collect and evaluate the evidence, and make as best a decision as you can. If you can't figure it out, you refer it to someone who can.
There is always someone who can.
I would predict that among other things beyond my ken as a mere economics student and warehouse rat, this would involve:
- Testing the contestants' knowledge of particular marks on the property that would prove their prior claim;
- Hearing the testimony of witnesses (neighbors, business partners, et al);
- Tracking the history of title and testing its validity, etc.
And also, the contestants may have conflicting claims of varying degrees of strength - x may have planted a garden and let it go fallow in later years, whereupon y built a house on that spot. Does the prior claim of x extend over a period of time sufficient to sustain it beyond the building of y's house? Or does y have the stronger claim because he used land for an obviously productive purpose, where x's claim was based on dubious and tenuous productive use?
That's a question for x and y to work out through their respective advocates. As more and more of those situations are resolved, the theory is refined.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Libertas est Veritas:I haven't seen even hypothetical models for how it would be handled. If we can't even conceptualize how it might work, then I would say it is a problem.
There's a famous essay that I think is appropriate here. It's called "I, pencil": http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/i,%20pencil%202006.pdf
It's not a problem if you or I or the folks here are unable to conceptualize how private land management might work. Market entreprenuers can, that's all that matters.
It is a much easier issue concerning land that has already been platted and titled by previous statist land bureaus. Successor private defense agencies are pretty much bound by existing records.
The problem will be with all the unclaimed land held by the government by fiat that will all of a sudden be opened to homestead, as per Rothbard's theory of initial acquisition of vacant land. This land is completely unplatted. Thankfully all of it is divided by townships, so there will be a reference point for private defense agencies to recognize land claims.
Loggers will be able to secure pretty quick title to their existing lease lands from the government. Same with ranchers and mineral leasee's. I think privately funded interests will move fast to grab the national parks before anybody would have a chance to homestead and possibly try to develop said parks. The main problems will develop in fiat land that currently has no use.
All in all, there will be a lot of troubles in the beginning, but I think the market will figure them out.
Libertas est Veritas: I'm not sure I understand. Land ownership is usually very precise. So if there is no central archive of who owns what, how do you determine one claim to be valid and one to be invalid? Especially in situations where the precise limits of the owned land are concerned?
Even today there is no "central archive". In Arizona (where I live) and in most other states that I know, all land ownership records are maintained at the county level, not at the state or federal level.
When we are finally rid of government rulers, I image that the numerous Title Insurance agencies will homestead the county records, probably thru a mutually owned subsidiary. Title Insurance agencies would then probably continue to insure land titles and utilize and update (for a fee as they do today) the "central" database maintained by the subsidiary.
Is there a central database regarding who owns money? Or TVs? Or shoes?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Libertas est Veritas:.... but let's say I want to buy land. How do I make sure that the person selling me the land actually owns it?
That problem exists today, and the solution under anarchy would probably be the same as it is now. Hire a Title Insurance agency to validate and insure the title to the property.
I owned some mountain property in Arizona that had overlapping claims. These claims arose from mining claims that were quickly made and not accurately established. (Rugged terrain is especially prone to inaccurate boundary lines). When the minining claims were converted to "regular", surveyed property, the overlapping claims were resolved by earliest registration date.