I wander what happens to "public ownership" in an anarcho-capitalist society. Sometimes it's difficult to individualize who owns certain things, because many people benefit simultaneously from it, before anyone claims its ownership. According to Rodering Long:
"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."Now, given that those paths are somewhat public, their management should be of the same nature, public. The less evil solution to manage that property is, i think, democratically, by direct voting of every individual who directly benefits of it. Is it conceivable in an anarcho-capitalist society, where every property should have only one owner? Or am I missing something?
This is a problem of how the land is owned, including the village.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Anarcho-capitalism doesnt require that there be only one owner per a specific property. Two people can own 50% of one specific property.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Anarcho-capitalism doesnt require that there be only one owner per a specific property. Two people can own 50% of one specific property.
Only in equal parts? How do they resolve disputes? Is there any good book/article about this issue?
I thought about this question too when I was reading Atlas Shrugged and Midas Mulligan basically owns all of "Galt's Gulch." She (Rand) basically avoids talking about this problem by she implying that all the residents of the Gulch are always in total unanimous agreement and consent about questions of land ownership. It would have been interesting to see a dispute with Mulligan be taken to their only arbitrator, Judge Narrangansett.
Jacob Bloom: I thought about this question too when I was reading Atlas Shrugged and Midas Mulligan basically owns all of "Galt's Gulch." She (Rand) basically avoids talking about this problem by she implying that all the residents of the Gulch are always in total unanimous agreement and consent about questions of land ownership. It would have been interesting to see a dispute with Mulligan be taken to their only arbitrator, Judge Narrangansett.
For obvious economic reasons deriving from the division of labor, it is not possible for all of a city to be owned by a single owner. However one can own property that is within another property, such that the land can be owned by one owner but the different buildings by different owners.
This got me musing, and here is my musing, and I offer it as a speculative answer.
is homesteading an intenional act or is it not?.
if it is then any walkers who may have been said to 'un-intentionally homestead' the land as they contributed their snippet of 'so called-labour" to it perhaps did no such thing. the 'labour' would be an accidental by product, an externality outside of the consideration of the acting parties, as such the villagers that mindlessly constructed the path through unhomesteaded property whilst they went about their intentional business did none of them homestead it.
Rather the first person to homestead it, homesteaded it.Maybe this was the first person that left a marginal trail and asserted a property right over it. maybe he consented for a time to let other people use the path, until later choosing to change the terms of use for the property, this original may have bequethed property rights to his inheritor, or may have even abandoned it. thus leaving it for the next person who intentionally homesteaded it, to homestead it. if it moves privatize it, if it doesn't move privatize it, as everything either moves or doesnt....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Stranger: For obvious economic reasons deriving from the division of labor, it is not possible for all of a city to be owned by a single owner. However one can own property that is within another property, such that the land can be owned by one owner but the different buildings by different owners.
Wait, why can't one person own all the property of an anarchist region?
Jacob Bloom: Stranger: For obvious economic reasons deriving from the division of labor, it is not possible for all of a city to be owned by a single owner. However one can own property that is within another property, such that the land can be owned by one owner but the different buildings by different owners. Wait, why can't one person own all the property of an anarchist region?
Well, they could, it would just be very unlikely. And undesirable, IMO.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Well, they could, it would just be very unlikely. And undesirable, IMO.
Why is it unlikely? Seems to me that such a region would be founded by one rich anarchist who would then invite all his friends to come live with him. Like in Atlas Shrugged.
Jacob Bloom:Why is it unlikely? Seems to me that such a region would be founded by one rich anarchist who would then invite all his friends to come live with him. Like in Atlas Shrugged.
And that one individual would buy property, homes, cars, and other necesscities for his/her friends?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Why is it unlikely? Seems to me that such a region would be founded by one rich anarchist who would then invite all his friends to come live with him. Like in Atlas Shrugged. And that one individual would buy property, homes, cars, and other necesscities for his/her friends?
I dunno maybe. Probably would just need to buy the land to have control. Because then you can always kick people out. I mean...wouldn't you just rather own the land?
Why would you want to own the land for the sake of owning the land?
Daniel: Why would you want to own the land for the sake of owning the land?
Because it's valuable and if people disagreed with me I'd remind them whose land they were living on. Politely ofcourse.
@bloom. if you just owned the land then you wouldnt own the whole city. you never pay attention to the premise. its a thing with you i notice.
nirgrahamUK: @bloom. if you just owned the land then you wouldnt own the whole city. you never pay attention to the premise. its a thing with you i notice.
If I own all the land...don't I basically control everything built/kept on it??
you made it explicit when you said own all the land that you were excluding ownership of everything else. keep up withyourself
nirgrahamUK: you made it explicit when you said own all the land that you were excluding ownership of everything else. keep up withyourself
Ok whoa. So I buy this big chunk of land in the midwest. I call it the Bloom Anarchy Region. All you guys come live there. You rent the land from me. You build things on the land. Don't I own everything you own because I can just take it whenever I want? I mean...you guys are just renting my property from me.
Jacob Bloom:Ok whoa. So I buy this big chunk of land in the midwest. I call it the Bloom Anarchy Region. All you guys come live there. You rent the land from me. You build things on the land. Don't I own everything you own because I can just take it whenever I want? I mean...you guys are just renting my property from me.
Essentially a contract would need to be formulated stating what will happen to the property if we were to leave it. It would probably include compensation for the value of the house.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Ok whoa. So I buy this big chunk of land in the midwest. I call it the Bloom Anarchy Region. All you guys come live there. You rent the land from me. You build things on the land. Don't I own everything you own because I can just take it whenever I want? I mean...you guys are just renting my property from me. Essentially a contract would need to be formulated stating what will happen to the property if we were to leave it. It would probably include compensation for the value of the house.
Who is going to enforce our contract? I'm not saying I'd try to screw you guys, I'm just wondering.
Jacob Bloom:Who is going to enforce our contract? I'm not saying I'd try to screw you guys, I'm just wondering.
The court system of course
why is it you won't read Molinari, or Rothbard, or Hoppe, or Murphy, or Friedman, or the Tannehills on private production of law and security, but you are willing to read us?
nirgrahamUK: why is it you won't read Molinari, or Rothbard, or Hoppe, or Murphy, or Friedman, or the Tannehills on private production of law and security, but you are willing to read us?
Because you guys are the stewards of the information you've gathered and I can tell a lot about what would happen to me if I read all your favorite literature by just observing the effect it's had on you guys. Wise man say: "to take a man's advice is to take on his lifestyle."
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Who is going to enforce our contract? I'm not saying I'd try to screw you guys, I'm just wondering. The court system of course
But...I control them...don't I? I mean I own the land their building is on. It sounds like I will be needing a military.
Jacob Bloom:Because you guys are the stewards of the information you've gathered and I can tell a lot about what would happen to me if I read all your favorite literature by just observing the effect it's had on you guys. Wise man say: "to take a man's advice is to take on his lifestyle."
So you are so afraid to read these sources because you think you will actually be influenced by it? So you purposely isolate yourself from differing opinion to sustain your own? If your opinion is truly great [ and you are constantly telling us how ours doesn't work while yours is realistic ] then shouldn't you be able to read these authors and come out stronger?
Jacob Bloom:But...I control them...don't I? I mean I own the land their building is on. It sounds like I will be needing a military.
So you are going to own every piece of land in the midwest including every corporation that operates within it? By chance can you make unicorns magically exist in the midwest too. I hear they are quite wonderful creatures.
Yeah, it's amazing the hypotheticals people have to come up with to try to find the flaws in libertarianism/an-cap-ism. Anyway, the renters would need permission from the landowner to build improvements upon the land. The problem with Blooms' hypotheticals is that they are very simplistic and vague, and ill describe the assumptions required to answer his questions.
This reminds me of the Lifeboat Situation problem. Who's be allowed on limited seating of the lifeboats in the case of an emergency? Well, who the hell owns the lifeboats? Does the cruise ship have an evacuation plan?
Also, if the landowner is going to throw tantrums or go on power trips, then the market will probably develop another country nearby and offer better service to its customers. That is, unless Bloom uses the power of the state to stop that from happening. Lol.
Because it would not be in his economic interests to do so. Allowing others to own property within his property would allow him to realize gains from specialization and the division of labor.
Stranger: Jacob Bloom: Stranger: For obvious economic reasons deriving from the division of labor, it is not possible for all of a city to be owned by a single owner. However one can own property that is within another property, such that the land can be owned by one owner but the different buildings by different owners. Wait, why can't one person own all the property of an anarchist region? Because it would not be in his economic interests to do so. Allowing others to own property within his property would allow him to realize gains from specialization and the division of labor.
Beat me to it. Also, various costs wouldn't be socialized by the state (defense, upkeep, arguably transportation, etc.), which would add a diseconomy of scale in owning land.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Because you guys are the stewards of the information you've gathered and I can tell a lot about what would happen to me if I read all your favorite literature by just observing the effect it's had on you guys. Wise man say: "to take a man's advice is to take on his lifestyle." So you are so afraid to read these sources because you think you will actually be influenced by it? So you purposely isolate yourself from differing opinion to sustain your own? If your opinion is truly great [ and you are constantly telling us how ours doesn't work while yours is realistic ] then shouldn't you be able to read these authors and come out stronger?
Yes, but then I'd have to hear all these ideas in my head that are...totally unpleasant for however long it takes me to finish all these books. At the end of it, I'll only feel more conviction about my ideas...what's the point. I can see what it's done to you guys. If you're happy, awesome. But I don't want to be like you.
I learned this strategy from Gracie Jiu Jitsu. I just practice the art I learned and it works for me. I don't try to go around learning new moves. And I really want to be isolated from anarchism in particular because I want people to actually listen to what I have to say and not tune me out as some kind of fanatic. Which is kind of what you guys sound like to me. No offense or anything.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:But...I control them...don't I? I mean I own the land their building is on. It sounds like I will be needing a military. So you are going to own every piece of land in the midwest including every corporation that operates within it? By chance can you make unicorns magically exist in the midwest too. I hear they are quite wonderful creatures.
I have no means of creating unicorns. Unless we just glue a horn to a horse's head or something.
No, the people could move away. I predict I would walk away owning more than I originally did because I would seize the property they built on my land. And then I'd be rich!!
Jacob Bloom:No, the people could move away. I predict I would walk away owning more than I originally did because I would seize the property they built on my land. And then I'd be rich!!
But it would be useless, and worthless, without the people to run it.
Stranger: Because it would not be in his economic interests to do so. Allowing others to own property within his property would allow him to realize gains from specialization and the division of labor.
I dunno. I think I'd rather just own the land. Then I can let them worry about specialization and division of labor. You can do whatever pleases you.
Stranger: Jacob Bloom:No, the people could move away. I predict I would walk away owning more than I originally did because I would seize the property they built on my land. And then I'd be rich!! But it would be useless, and worthless, without the people to run it.
I could probably take out loans on all the property. Or sell it. Then let someone else worry with it.
Daniel: Yeah, it's amazing the hypotheticals people have to come up with to try to find the flaws in libertarianism/an-cap-ism. Anyway, the renters would need permission from the landowner to build improvements upon the land. The problem with Blooms' hypotheticals is that they are very simplistic and vague, and ill describe the assumptions required to answer his questions. This reminds me of the Lifeboat Situation problem. Who's be allowed on limited seating of the lifeboats in the case of an emergency? Well, who the hell owns the lifeboats? Does the cruise ship have an evacuation plan?
On my Bloomboat, I have priority seating on my lifeboats! I don't actually have a Bloomboat :(
Jacob Bloom: Stranger: Because it would not be in his economic interests to do so. Allowing others to own property within his property would allow him to realize gains from specialization and the division of labor. I dunno. I think I'd rather just own the land. Then I can let them worry about specialization and division of labor. You can do whatever pleases you.
What you're essentially arguing is that people act against their own economic interests. You won't find a lot of support for that idea in a school of economics.
You won't touch any of those books because you find their ideas unpleasant, but you'll lurk around here absorbing second-hand interpretations of the same stuff?
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Yeah, it's amazing the hypotheticals people have to come up with to try to find the flaws in libertarianism/an-cap-ism. Anyway, the renters would need permission from the landowner to build improvements upon the land. The problem with Blooms' hypotheticals is that they are very simplistic and vague, and ill describe the assumptions required to answer his questions. This reminds me of the Lifeboat Situation problem. Who's be allowed on limited seating of the lifeboats in the case of an emergency? Well, who the hell owns the lifeboats? Does the cruise ship have an evacuation plan? On my Bloomboat, I have priority seating on my lifeboats! I don't actually have a Bloomboat :(
I'm afraid to go aboard your Bloomboat because might (and probably will) throw me off the boat into the ocean. Lol.