So I was thinking about the Libertarian answer to environmentalism, which is that pollution shouldn't be allowed if it infringes on an un-consenting owner's property. More generally, libertarians are claiming that a landowner has the rights to make whatever laws s/he wants on their property. In this way, how is a landowner different from a government? They both have a territorial monopoly on the use of force etc in the land they own.
Landowners and the federalis seem to only differ in that the latter claims to own all land in the America, while the landowner just claims to own their own land. This of course raises the question of whether it is legitimate for someone to own land, and if so on what basis do they own it. Regardless, if given perfect autonomy over their land, landowners would seem to be analogous to a whole bunch of very small governments. Obviously this is preferable to the leviathan, I'm just wondering if anyone has anything to say about this conclusion. I personally believe that property rights arise out of economic need rather than some natural or inalienable right. My own thoughts aside, I think libertarians will have a hard time showing that a man can own land even if he owns himself and his labor. This might lead libertarians to the conclusion that there are no land-property rights, which would dissolve the problem of lots of little governments springing up, and result again in a morally consistent philosophy (Since everyone has to be somewhere and if somewhere is owned it follows that they are under the rule of gummint).Bed time now. I'll check back on this in the morning. Peace mises people.
Snowflake:So I was thinking about the Libertarian answer to environmentalism, which is that pollution shouldn't be allowed if it infringes on an un-consenting owner's property. More generally, libertarians are claiming that a landowner has the rights to make whatever laws s/he wants on their property. In this way, how is a landowner different from a government? They both have a territorial monopoly on the use of force etc in the land they own.
Most libertarians believe in natural rights, so the idea that property owners can make whatever laws they want is silly. You cannot gun down the candy thief. And there is a fundamental difference between a government (the state) and land owners in that the latter is acquired justly while the former isn't.
Snowflake:Landowners and the federalis seem to only differ in that the latter claims to own all land in the America, while the landowner just claims to own their own land. This of course raises the question of whether it is legitimate for someone to own land, and if so on what basis do they own it.
Homesteading.
Snowflake:I personally believe that property rights arise out of economic need rather than some natural or inalienable right. My own thoughts aside, I think libertarians will have a hard time showing that a man can own land even if he owns himself and his labor.
To purposefully avoid all ethics and moral talk, property rights are a logical necessity in a world of scarcity, the better arranged... the better.
Snowflake:This might lead libertarians to the conclusion that there are no land-property rights, which would dissolve the problem of lots of little governments springing up, and result again in a morally consistent philosophy (Since everyone has to be somewhere and if somewhere is owned it follows that they are under the rule of gummint).
That conclusion may solve the problem of little governments, but it won't solve the problem of starvation, or the problem of... (End with the problem of pollution to bring this back to your starting point.) I don't know how that amounts to a morally consistent philosophy, being under the rule of government doesn't follow since there are no land-property rights. If you are really interested you should take a look at libertarian socialism... however its anything but consistently moral.
Snowflake:In this way, how is a landowner different from a government? They both have a territorial monopoly on the use of force etc in the land they own.
Putting aside ethics for the moment, a household is indeed practically very similar to a tiny government. This is just another way of pointing out that anarchy and monopoly Statism are matters of degree (degrees of centralization). For that matter, I don't know of any anarchists who are for letting their children "do whatever they want as long as they don't violate the NAP," so even in anarchy a family would still be a micro-State in that sense.
Why anarchy fails
Angurse:Most libertarians believe in natural rights, so the idea that property owners can make whatever laws they want is silly. You cannot gun down the candy thief. And there is a fundamental difference between a government (the state) and land owners in that the latter is acquired justly while the former isn't.
Right that's what I suspected libertarians would say. But I thought once you violated someone's property rights you forfeited all of your rights.
Angurse:Homesteading.
Angurse:To purposefully avoid all ethics and moral talk, property rights are a logical necessity in a world of scarcity, the better arranged... the better.
Angurse:That conclusion may solve the problem of little governments, but it won't solve the problem of starvation, or the problem of... (End with the problem of pollution to bring this back to your starting point.)
I think I was saying land-property rights would be inconsistent with libertarian thought because every man would be inside some landowners jurisdiction aka gov. Since even if you think landowners can't make any law they want, they can certainly tax everyone who passes through their land.
Snowflake:Regardless, if given perfect autonomy over their land, landowners would seem to be analogous to a whole bunch of very small governments. Obviously this is preferable to the leviathan, I'm just wondering if anyone has anything to say about this conclusion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Legitimacy
Knight_of_BAAWA:Extension of self-ownership
Knight_of_BAAWA:Each person has "governance" over his or her body.
Snowflake:Not following how this applies to land.
So you disagree assertion that when one uses previously unowned resources, they come into his/her possession?
Seph:So you disagree assertion that when one uses previously unowned resources, they come into his/her possession?
Though even if I agree with you it raises a whole host of other questions... like if I till land do i only own the parts I till? Do I own the rights to the air above or the land below? If I stop tilling for a season do I forfeit my property rights during that period or do I own that land forever...
It's true that property creates mini-monopolies. At first, this thought is disturbing because monopolies are associated with bad attributes, but in the case of property, the monopolistic incentive structure is actually a good thing:A monopolist wants to extract maximum profit from that which he controls. For private property, this means maximum sustainability for long-term gains, maximum efficiency for current output and maximum production in general. Society benefits from this by being able to consume cheap and numerous products that were not available before. In a society without assured and distinct property ownership, the incentive is to maximize current output for one's own short-term benefit before control is usurped by another third party. This leads to waste, decay, pollution and shortages, as demonstrated by the Soviet economies.So, ultimately, property rights arise and prevail because a critical percentage of people recognize them as sound. Without that, there is no real private property. It may exist as an idea, but it will not occur. "Society" or "the tribe" or "the collective" will prevent it.And while we can make educated guesses about whether or not private property is "good", we cannot "prove" that it is "legitimate" for we cannot even objectively define what constitutes "property". A great illustration would be recreational areas which are not turned upside down on purpose, yet they serve an economic purpose. Much of the land that is required for a profitable recreational area should not be touched by a land owner, yet homesteading theories of property require this for "legitimate" property to exist.The fact of the matter is, property did arise out of a need to distribute the means of production. We can ex post facto try to give a generally economically sound idea an "objectively good" coating, but in my opinion, that's only going to lead to absurd conclusions (see problem of self-ownership of amebae etc).
Snowflake:Right that's what I suspected libertarians would say. But I thought once you violated someone's property rights you forfeited all of your rights.
No, not all of your rights. Only in proportion.
Snowflake:How is homesteading legitimate?
More or less:
Locke:Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
But honestly how is legitimacy legitimate?
Snowflake:I don't know if this is the case. I think property rights arise because they are cheaper than not having property rights in some cases. For example it is cheaper for me to enforce my claim of ownership to my house than it is to let people rob it. Conversely it is cheaper for me not to assert ownership over a barren patch of land as the cost of protecting it could never be balanced by what I got out of it. On this utilitarian ground it is possible that some new concept brought about by technology might supersede the utility of property rights, or change them completely.
That doesn't make sense. You are assuming you own the items in your house (as they can be stolen). And I disagree with your premise, normally its cheaper to let people steal. How often do muggers get resisted?
Snowflake:You don't have to own land to be able to till it.
You lack incentives to do so. Why would you till land that you don't own? Love? And even if you did it out of love, you don't own the products so why shouldn't I just take them?
Snowflake: I think I was saying land-property rights would be inconsistent with libertarian thought because every man would be inside some landowners jurisdiction aka gov. Since even if you think landowners can't make any law they want, they can certainly tax everyone who passes through their land.
Thats not exactly true, as not all land wouldn't necessarily be owned, see Roderick Long on this. Further, contractual stipulations, such as easements could solve the any "just passing through" problem.
Sphairon:It's true that property creates mini-monopolies. At first, this thought is disturbing because monopolies are associated with bad attributes, but in the case of property, the monopolistic incentive structure is actually a good thing:A monopolist wants to extract maximum profit from that which he controls.
Sphairon:The fact of the matter is, property did arise out of a need to distribute the means of production. We can ex post facto try to give a generally economically sound idea an "objectively good" coating, but in my opinion, that's only going to lead to absurd conclusions (see problem of self-ownership of amebae etc).
Angurse: Locke:Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
Even if I agree with this analysis, Nozick's example makes this interpretation absurd.
Angurse:That doesn't make sense. You are assuming you own the items in your house (as they can be stolen). And I disagree with your premise, normally its cheaper to let people steal. How often do muggers get resisted?
Angurse:Thats not exactly true, as not all land wouldn't necessarily be owned, see Roderick Long on this. Further, contractual stipulations, such as easements could solve the any "just passing through" problem.
Snowflake:Even if I agree with this analysis, Nozick's example makes this interpretation absurd.
Nozick basically said the same thing as Locke, he just didn't appeal to god as Locke did.
Snowflake: I mean it is cheaper to have property rights than not; that I can get more capital if I defend my claim to land than if I forfeit ownership of my labor. The point is that property rights arise out of utility rather than some natural law.
How is it cheaper, you have to produce in order to get more capital. While I can just steal (which technically isn't possible, as you need to have an owner in the first place, which you don't.). Property arises out of necessity.
Snowflake:Could you link the analysis by Long? I usually like his work.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f53l1.html
Also see:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=362
Snowflake:The point I was making was not that landowners would abuse toll privileges, but that the right of them to do so exists under natural rights based property.
Sure, but you have yet to show that what they are doing constitutes "abuse" (also, unlike with a state, if the toll is too much you can simply pick a cheaper alternative, etc...)
Angurse:Nozick basically said the same thing as Locke, he just didn't appeal to god as Locke did.
Angurse:How is it cheaper, you have to produce in order to get more capital. While I can just steal (which technically isn't possible, as you need to have an owner in the first place, which you don't.). Property arises out of necessity.
Angurse:Sure, but you have yet to show that what they are doing constitutes "abuse" (also, unlike with a state, if the toll is too much you can simply pick a cheaper alternative, etc...)
Legitimate acquisition requires use, the government did not acquire land legitimately. Furthermore the government itself is not a legitimate entity except for those that agree to its terms voluntarily. If you question property acquisition by use then answer this, if I create a walking stick by wittling and smoothing a piece of wood, who owns it? If I don't own it who does?
Snowflake:So how does Nozick resolve his observation that you do work when you pour a can of sauce into the ocean but do not come to own the ocean?
When I build a fence around the equator how come I don't own half the earth?
Snowflake: So how does Nozick resolve his observation that you do work when you pour a can of sauce into the ocean but do not come to own the ocean?
What is there to resolve? Do you think Locke would say otherwise?
Snowflake:You can't steal if I assert myself. This is what property rights seek to legitimize. My point is that this kind of assertion does not require a natural rights concept of property rights.
Sure, I can. You assert yourself, Bam! *dead*. Thats why your premise seemed flawed, its generally cheaper not to. But I never said you need natural rights to claim (legitimately or otherwise) property rights.
Snowflake:I think you misunderstood me: I agree that even a baseless concept of private property is superior to the state's arrangement. I'm simply trying to challenge the theoretical basis for property in an attempt to develop political philosophy.
Earlier you claimed to be challenging land-property due to they being inconsistent with libertarian thought. You are going to have to prove the concept of "abuse" as being more than baseless to start. As your challenges can be directed toward the individual quite easily.
I think people overestimate the force of Nozick's point. It was his wont to delve into puzzles he found difficult to resolve; that does not necessarily mean he thought said puzzles were decisive objections. Either way libertarians use a variant of Lockean homesteading, and I suggest people google Kinsella's How we come to own ourselves to get an idea of what it is. Few actually use the straightforward Lockean justification.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Right, so this would seem to suggest that the problem of government is not that it is a monopoly but that it can externalize costs unto its citizens as it seeks to maximize its income.That, and the fact that contrary to market participants, they don't need to satisfy a customer demand in order to increase revenue. A capitalist may also wish to externalize costs, e.g. by polluting the environment, but that capitalist at leads needs to sell something to stay in business. The state doesn't.It's not that states don't produce anything either. To the contrary, they create an astounding maze of paragraphs, forms and paperwork. In World War II, state-financed research improved military technology tremendously.But this is all stuff that people wouldn't normally buy, yet states can just keep perverting the structure of production anyway because they have a monopoly on violence.
Right, I agree. The whole point of this post was to verify this conceptual difficulty I was having. I'm trying to revolutionize the way I think and pitch issues. Libertarian property rights is a wrinkle to be sure.
The thing is, when you deny the objective nature of property rights, you also deny libertarianism's status as "the truth". You reduce it to being a good idea. That's controversial, to say the least.
Sphairon:The thing is, when you deny the objective nature of property rights, you also deny libertarianism's status as "the truth". You reduce it to being a good idea. That's controversial, to say the least.
Among libertarians. In broader circles libertarianism is controversial.
Thanks for suggesting the Kinsella piece. I enjoy his work.
I did find the first use principle to be kind of arbitrary... It is objective in that it will work provide a definite resolution as to who owns what property every time; I think this is why Kinsella chooses it. It is arbitrary in the metaphysical sense because the definition of "first user" is not equivalent to "owner", where i'm assuming owner means the person(s) who have control over whatever property.I think I'm preferring the Rothbardian approach that was mentioned in another recent thread.