Justification of External Property

In a debate how would you justify (individual) property in external objects?

For example, how would you attempt to convince someone who believed in individual self-ownership, but universal joint ownership of external resources, no ownership of external resources, or severely restricted ownership of external resources, that the correct position was to allow individual absolute ownership of external resources.

I have used various arguments in the past but I'm not sure they're very good, and am wondering what other people on the forum think (plus I have a term of political theory tutorials with a lefty tutor and would like some new/good arguments).

That's really a loaded question, like assumption of guilt until you can prove innocence, the burden of proof would be on them. However... it's absolutely necessary for any semblance of a functioning market.

Well the homesteading and first-use theories are an attempt at this... basically HS says that if you mix your labor with something you now have a "better" claim to it than someone else, ceteris paribis. Roderick T Long demonstrates that you can possess external things because your body is made up of external things (what you eat)... so that when you eat an apple you make it part of yourself and thus come to own it, assuming we have self ownership.

Similarly, first use says whoever used it first has a right to it and bla bla bla. IMO these are kind of ad-hoc justifications for private property.

The problem with the homesteading and first use theories is of course that they are not intrinsically utilitarian. So even if you were the first to appropriate a piece of land, maybe someone else can use it to farm more food so they should have it. I know we're not utilitarians but we are certainly arguing against them, so they will throw this argument at you.

I personally never talk about property rights in the moral sense... I think that property rights will arise on the free market simply because it is more efficient to have them than not have them in most cases. It is also hard to advocate private property because much of what is owned now has been a result of the state's interpretation of what that means... which inevitably benefited well connected business interests. A good example of this is pollution, where the state chooses not to view pollution as a violation of property rights. Rothbard even supported the idea that workers in factories had actually come to own the factory more than the owner because they had put more into it than they had... I suppose you can see where this gets problematic.

So, for example, if I use money to buy a house but then rent it out to some folks, 20 years later who owns the house? Is buying something as-good-as homesteading it?

I'm personally not a libertarian because i don't need to be. All i want to advocate is peace and prosperity, and I don't need a moral theory of individual property rights to achieve that. The strongest arguments you can use are on the incentive structure of the state as a monopoly, and the benefits of voluntarism. You can spike all justifications for utilitarian violation of the NAP by using the utilitarian argument against the state. Its so easy its like shooting fish in a barrel.

Long has an excellent discussion of property rights in Part II of this paper.

Also see this.

David Schmidtz's paper "The Institution of Property" is very good.

basically HS says that if you mix your labor with something you now have a "better" claim to it than someone else,

 

i though it was if you mixed you labor with a previously unowned something....so if i own a yacht and you you mix laborious graffitti on it...its still my yacht even though all i ever do is relax on it.

 

and why would all things equal have anything to do with that....if there were unequal things afoot...couldnt the homesteading rule still apply?

Thedesolateone:

In a debate how would you justify (individual) property in external objects?

For example, how would you attempt to convince someone who believed in individual self-ownership, but universal joint ownership of external resources, no ownership of external resources, or severely restricted ownership of external resources, that the correct position was to allow individual absolute ownership of external resources.

I have used various arguments in the past but I'm not sure they're very good, and am wondering what other people on the forum think (plus I have a term of political theory tutorials with a lefty tutor and would like some new/good arguments).

If you had to get everyone's opinion on how to use external resources, you could not exist and could not be arguing for common ownership. Neither could you exist if all external resources were unowned.

If external objects means stuff no one owns as of now, like the oceans, then we have the Walter Block tapes that discuss it at length.

His basic argument is that if an individual owns soemthing, he will take care of it, to make sure he makes money from it. But if a thing is free for all to use, they will use it up greedily right away, lest someone beat them to it. And of course no one will take care of the place or invest in keeping it going.

He gives many many historical examples. One I remember is: Why are cows not extinct but the almost identical buffalo is extinct?

 

 

Snowflake:

The problem with the homesteading and first use theories is of course that they are not intrinsically utilitarian.

That's not a problem.

Snowflake:

It is also hard to advocate private property because much of what is owned now has been a result of the state's interpretation of what that means... which inevitably benefited well connected business interests.

It's only hard if you're a utilitarian.

Justice and Property Rights - Chapter 4 - Egalitarianism Revolt Against Nature

Snowflake:

You can spike all justifications for utilitarian violation of the NAP by using the utilitarian argument against the state.

"Explain why the individual should behave morally.  The fact that we are all better off if we all behave morally is utterly true and utterly irrelevant.  (Such an argument violates the cherished Austrian precepts of marginalism and individualism.)  The truly difficult moral issues resemble the familiar Prisoner’s Dilemma; regardless of everyone else’s behavior, the individual does better by exploiting others.  It is true that a society suffering from widespread theft would be intolerable, even from a thief’s point of view, but any individual robbery has very little impact on the overall level of crime."

Did Joseph Stalin act against his self interests in the long run? Do you concede that your possible condemnation of Stalin is purely an empirical matter? (It might be true that had every other Soviet acted in his true interests, dictatorship would have been impossible.  But this is dodging the issue.)

My means are a part of me, because I incorporated them in my plans as means towards ends. Using a part of my means for your plans is a problem of intersubjectivity; who has the right to do what? Because me (by assumption) being first, I was the first one who made a reasonable claim to it - a claim that no-one contested it at that time. Therefore: I have a reasonable claim to the item. Other people who want to use this object, create conflict and are being unreasonable, because they can't give a reason why their end is more important then my end. (If they convince me that their end is more important, then I can subject my end towards their end and then we don't have any problem anymore.) (This way 'first ownership' is proven to be reasonable and logical correct, not for any utilitarian reason.) Thus, they are wrong for wanting to use my means (my 'external object').

The important thing is to remember their is no 'outside' world accept in the way people evaluate stuff. When people talk of 'taking something out of the commons' they are talking nonsense. Either it truly was a (private property) common (i.e. multiple persons have a legitimate claim to it) and then you can't claim it or either it was a res nulius: something that nobody incorporated in his plans and thus nobody can have a legitimate claim to it. (And it is basivly 'yours for the taken'.) When people claim 'new property' they are not taking anything away: they are introducing new stuf in the world of human action and society.

Something like this. English is not my native language and I always find it difficult to explain philosophy of law in English. :)

 

Make sure that you don't make the mistake (similar to the labour theory of value) of asserting to the labor theory of property. Just as subjectivism is the only way towards value, subjectivism is the way to go to legitimize property, i.e. the subjective (dynamic, evaluative, marginal) theory of property.

(To use a slogan. ;))

Conza88:

That's not a problem.

It is if you're a utilitarian. I know you're not but the people we argue against often are, so its important to tailor your arguments to whatever moral delusions they have. I think its an ineffective strategy to try and debate ethics with people... we're stubborn; we already know the right answer. You can get more mileage by keeping your economics ethics-free.

Conza88:

It's only hard if you're a utilitarian.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough... I meant that the property rights we had were not libertarian property rights but rather a state interpretation of what they meant...

Conza88:

The fact that we are all better off if we all behave morally is utterly true and utterly irrelevant. 

Right, but not everyone has such a staunch moral backbone like you. I'm not trying to formulate a pure and concrete theory here, i'm merely highlighting the most effective arguments against the state. I think all the arguments become much stronger if they are independent becuase the whole thing doesn't collapse if your audience thinks one part is wrong.

Snowflake:

Rothbard even supported the idea that workers in factories had actually come to own the factory more than the owner because they had put more into it than they had.

Can you quote where Rothbard says this? I don't get how he would reach this conclusion.

 

Snowflake:

It is if you're a utilitarian.

That's your problem.

Snowflake:

I know you're not but the people we argue against often are, so its important to tailor your arguments to whatever moral delusions they have. I think its an ineffective strategy to try and debate ethics with people... we're stubborn; we already know the right answer. You can get more mileage by keeping your economics ethics-free.

I do keep my economics - value free, thank you very much. You ought to learn the difference between Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. As Law, however, is a normative discipline.

"Every argument I have ever heard on the House floor is presented as utilitarian and—for the pressure groups represented— the proposals certainly are “utilitarian.” These arguments are never based on the moral principles of people’s natural right to run their own lives. Santa Claus wins the “utilitarian” argument until it’s too late to do anything about it.

The interventionist’s reliance on the appeal of Santa Claus, “utilitarianism,” and an ostensibly high-minded concern for the downtrodden can only be countered by a more truly utilitarian defense of the free market and the concept of natural rights—which allows the non-interventionists to take the true moral high ground. In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time. They have won throughout the 20th century, while the concept of God-given rights [ / secular natural law] has been almost obliterated. Austerity for the benefit of the next generation won’t get enough votes in a democratic political system. Combine it with a moral argument for natural rights, and the chances of success are greatly enhanced." ~ Ron Paul

One benefit being;

3. Natural Law versus Positive Law (Listen to MP3)

If, then, the natural law is discovered by reason from "the basic inclinations of human nature ... absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places," it follows that the natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place.[37] The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly "radical" ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.

Snowflake:

It is also hard to advocate private property because much of what is owned now has been a result of the state's interpretation of what that means... which inevitably benefited well connected business interests.

Conza88:

It's only hard if you're a utilitarian.

Justice and Property Rights - Chapter 4 - Egalitarianism Revolt Against Nature

Snowflake:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough... I meant that the property rights we had were not libertarian property rights but rather a state interpretation of what they meant...

No, you were clear enough & I completely understood your point. Also, my comment still stands. Did you read the link? Thoughts?

Snowflake:

You can spike all justifications for utilitarian violation of the NAP by using the utilitarian argument against the state.

Conza88:

"Explain why the individual should behave morally.  The fact that we are all better off if we all behave morally is utterly true and utterly irrelevant.  (Such an argument violates the cherished Austrian precepts of marginalism and individualism.)  The truly difficult moral issues resemble the familiar Prisoner’s Dilemma; regardless of everyone else’s behavior, the individual does better by exploiting others.  It is true that a society suffering from widespread theft would be intolerable, even from a thief’s point of view, but any individual robbery has very little impact on the overall level of crime."

Did Joseph Stalin act against his self interests in the long run? Do you concede that your possible condemnation of Stalin is purely an empirical matter? (It might be true that had every other Soviet acted in his true interests, dictatorship would have been impossible.  But this is dodging the issue.)

Snowflake:

Right, but not everyone has such a staunch moral backbone like you.

I beg to differ. The moral high ground is remarkably important. The statists attempt to claim it all the time, in essence it is what government rests on (consent). And imo, consent is more likely to be withdrawn and far more effective, when it is pointed out that the individual has a gun in their hands. A free society isn't going to come about from cost / benefit analysis. lol

By the way, any responses to the questions above?

Snowflake:

I'm not trying to formulate a pure and concrete theory here

That's wise because: "thinkers of the caliber of Yeager, Mises, and Hazlitt [have tried] and were unable to expound the doctrine in a satisfactory way, I have come to conclude that such an exercise is impossible."

Snowflake:

i'm merely highlighting the most effective arguments against the state. I think all the arguments become much stronger if they are independent becuase the whole thing doesn't collapse if your audience thinks one part is wrong.

I don't think it is the most effective at all. I think showing the gun in the room is. Hint: It's in the statists hands aimed at your face. Normal people tend to react in horror at the thought they are advocating hiring a gang of criminals to solve a problem... more to the point if the person says they would, you then ask if they would did it themselves? i.e Hold a gun to your head, and threaten violence. If they say yes to that, the next question is - "would you pull the trigger?" For these type of people, who don't care about anyone else and are wannabe criminals, or positivists, the utilitarian argument would probably be more effective but not for everyone else.

Forget the Argument From Efficiency - Stefan Molyneux

The Argument From Morality and How We Will Win - Stefan Molyneux

A Handout For Statists - Stefan Molyneux

E. R. Olovetto:

Snowflake:

Rothbard even supported the idea that workers in factories had actually come to own the factory more than the owner because they had put more into it than they had.

Can you quote where Rothbard says this? I don't get how he would reach this conclusion.

Rothbard's argument is actually that "private" companies that get more than 50% of their revenue from the government should be considered government entities. And since government cannot own anything, ownership of the company reverts to those who have homesteaded it, e.g. factories to the workers. See his "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle".

Sage:

E. R. Olovetto:

Snowflake:

Rothbard even supported the idea that workers in factories had actually come to own the factory more than the owner because they had put more into it than they had.

Can you quote where Rothbard says this? I don't get how he would reach this conclusion.

Rothbard's argument is actually that "private" companies that get more than 50% of their revenue from the government should be considered government entities. And since government cannot own anything, ownership of the company reverts to those who have homesteaded it, e.g. factories to the workers. See his "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle".

"Although Rothbard made no such qualification in his 1969 statement (written, after all, at the height of his attempt at a coalition with the New Left), he and Hoppe agreed two decades later that an attempt should be made to restore state property to its original legitimate owner before confiscation, if records of ownership still existed."

AdrianHealey:

Make sure that you don't make the mistake (similar to the labour theory of value) of asserting to the labor theory of property. Just as subjectivism is the only way towards value, subjectivism is the way to go to legitimize property, i.e. the subjective (dynamic, evaluative, marginal) theory of property.

(To use a slogan. ;))

I like that.

Sage:

Rothbard's argument is actually that "private" companies that get more than 50% of their revenue from the government should be considered government entities. And since government cannot own anything, ownership of the company reverts to those who have homesteaded it, e.g. factories to the workers. See his "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle".

1. 50% is just some arbitrary figure.  Check out DiLorenzo's lecture at the last ASC where he talks about the arbitrary percentages used to decide who is and is not a monopoly.  Same thing Rothbard does here.  Forensic accounting can work miracles and confiscating 50% of private property because it is mixed with 50% of stolen by government property doesn't seem right.  It would be like you losing your house because you only had a 50% ownership stake in it, and the other 50% carried more weight than your 50%.

2. I and Wombatron had a debate some time back about restitution and post-state justice.  I reject Rothbard's theory as being focused on egalitarianism and not market based restitution.  It's another mark against homesteading, which as someone mentioned up thread is basically an ad hoc property doctrine anyway.

If we were to pursue true justice, then whatever the state has stolen, should be returned to those whom it was stolen from.  There is no absence of claimants only an absence of clear title.  No moral theory of justice can provide restitution to those not stolen from, at the expense of those stolen from.  We have the victims and the loot.  Just becase we cannot make a simple correlation between state property and what was confiscated, it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily award that property to a 3rd group that may neither be victim nor thief.  Can you see this sort of incoherent reasoning attached to other conflict resolutions?

"Sage, LS stole from you.  Because LS transformed it from currency into nuclear warheads he will give your stolen property to Angurse as Angurse works in a missile silo."  Justice served.

lol, wut?

As soon as someone invokes homesteading, it seems to me that people just accept the argument.

1. Tax
2. Homesteading
3. ????
4. Profit!

As though homesteading somehow is a legitimate way of passing title, even if the title was acquired illegitimately in the first place.  These folks are not homesteading anything by using state property.  While this theory of Rothbard's is consistent with egalitarianism and libertarian-leftism, it is not compatible with any ancap or voluntarist notion of property rights as far as I can see.

I believe that the market should be consulted for resolution of property conflicts.

I offered to Wombatron as a suggestion that the property could be put to auction, and then those with the greatest means could purchase the loot to repurpose it, and the proceeds from such an auction could then be divided and used to provide restitution to those stolen from (specifically those who lost currency to taxes, and property to confiscation).

liberty student:

"Sage, LS stole from you.  Because LS transformed it from currency into nuclear warheads he will give your stolen property to Angurse as Angurse works in a missile silo."  Justice served.

I like it!

Conza88:

I do keep my economics - value free, thank you very much. You ought to learn the difference between Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. As Law, however, is a normative discipline.

This may come as a surprise to you but property rights are justified by value free economics as well as libertarian moral theory...

Conza88:

The interventionist’s reliance on the appeal of Santa Claus, “utilitarianism,” and an ostensibly high-minded concern for the downtrodden can only be countered by a more truly utilitarian defense of the free market and the concept of natural rights—which allows the non-interventionists to take the true moral high ground.

Yes.

Conza88:

In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time. They have won throughout the 20th century, while the concept of God-given rights [ / secular natural law] has been almost obliterated.

No. The socialists have never won. We have never had a government of the people and by the people. The corporate elite have always won, and they choose their rhetoric with whatever fits their bill. It doesn't matter if we have free market arguments coming out of the mouths of our leaders (Reagan), or socialist rhetoric. The problem always has been government control of education and media, not "what types of arguments we use".

Socialism LOSES to the free market in a utilitarian debate. This is how I win all my arguments with people. You can't sell yourself if you can't take care of all the starving little babies, and frankly, I agree with that. I wouldn't approve of a plan, no matter how metaphysically moral it was, if it meant more people might die. I'm not going to stick my thumb up my @$$ and say "well I'm objectively right" while the world goes to crap.

Roderick T Long thinks this makes me morally bankrupt because there's literally nothing I wouldn't do if it were utilitarian. I might enslave people or kill them etc etc if it were for the greater good. Well, he might be right that those things are theoretically fair game, but in practice they are off limits to me. This also assumes that we buy deontological ethics, which I don't. But I don't think we need to repeat the subjective vs objective ethics debate, and you particularly don't want to hear my G.E. Moore/Wittgenstein defense.

In summary, I think libertarian ethics is compatible with a prosperous world, I just don't choose to highlight it because it seems irrelevant when compared to starvation and war.

Conza88:

Austerity for the benefit of the next generation won’t get enough votes in a democratic political system. Combine it with a moral argument for natural rights, and the chances of success are greatly enhanced.

Oh yeah totally. Libertarian ethics will totally fly if we can just get the message to people. Its not like the philosophical community doesn't have huge problems with libertarianism, let alone understanding it properly. Yeah yeah, this is why the libertarian movement has failed, because we didn't make the deontological argument that no bleeding heart liberal or war hawk conservative cares about.

Conza88:

Did Joseph Stalin act against his self interests in the long run? Do you concede that your possible condemnation of Stalin is purely an empirical matter?

Well I do have emotional problems with actions in and of themselves. So I would say that its both a matter of what he did and how he did it.

Conza88:

A free society isn't going to come about from cost / benefit analysis. lol

Doesn't praxeology teach us that human beings are purposeful actors? You're claiming that people won't take big risks for big rewards. *COUGH* I don't think there's been any revolution in history that was purely ideologically motivated: "Hey guys! Lets try this because its the morally correct thing to do. I don't know if we'll all starve but let's be objectively right for once!" lol

Conza88:

I don't think it is the most effective at all. I think showing the gun in the room is. Hint: It's in the statists hands aimed at your face. Normal people tend to react in horror at the thought they are advocating hiring a gang of criminals to solve a problem

Because it is consequentially bad... You don't trust the man with the gun because he will screw you over.

And btw, I feel like when you link articles and tell me to read them, its borderline abusive because of the amount of time you're asking me to put in. Just a courtesy.

"Such efficiency is always debatable, inevitably rests on technical details obscure to most people, and is one of the topics most subject to government misinformation. In Canada, arguing that a free market will produce lower costs in health care, for instance, always brings the contrary example of the United States, and its high spending on medical costs. Refuting this misleading statistic requires exhaustive levels of detail, which the listener has likely never heard before, and which are easy to dismiss. Arguing that health care was cheaper before the government got involved is also unproductive, since people can easily argue that technology was far less advanced in the past, or that there were fewer old people, or less life-extending procedures and pills. The argument from efficiency is never conclusive, since it requires statistics, a mountain of specialized knowledge, enormous patience – and it can be derailed at any time by false, missing or incomplete information."

1) I never have any problem with the argument from efficiency debate, even against hardcore bleeding heart liberal socialist planners. Its all about skill and knowledge. You can have the debate in front of a computer using wikipedia if you want to.

2) But free market theory is simple enough. It might be complicated if you were trying to compare specific programs but if you pitch the theory properly it will guide you through any web of statistics they can throw at you.

3) It doesn't matter that its always debatable. This doesn't justify shifting the debate to grounds where you always win. IRONICALLY this is a utilitarian argument about how you should use deontology. BWAHAHA

4) Number three is such a sinker... I'm laughing too hard to continue. Adieu.

liberty student:

If we were to pursue true justice, then whatever the state has stolen, should be returned to those whom it was stolen from. 

Indeed. I think Rothbard's homesteading plan is incomplete. But Hoppe's position is also clearly incomplete, because taxpayers are not the only victims of State aggression.

This may come as a surprise to you but property rights are justified by value free economics as well as libertarian moral theory...

I don't know if I agree with this. Economics can't 'justify' anything normative; an economist qua economist can only study the consequences of adhering to certain principles and rules. Maybe people ought not to work below a certain wage, but then involuntary unemployment will follow. Mises and Rothbard in HA and MES presupposed throughout their work a property based (and respected) society to analyze the consequences (until the part, of course, were they examined government intervention). But this doesn't justify property rights or anything.

Socialism LOSES to the free market in a utilitarian debate.

If and only if you are convinced of the market... You say this, because you are probably familiar with austrian economics (and perhaps with some moral philosophy like Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality), but it one isn't convinced about how the market works, then the utilitarian argument won't work, for obvious reasons.

And not all people always care about 'efficiency'. Note that Mises in Human Action in the chapter on the welfare principle and redistribution doesn't really denounces it per se as 'illegitimate'; he just investigates the reasons advocate and concludes that they are wrong or based on self-interest. But there are ways to evade the remarks Mises made. This is the enterprise of people like Kymlicka, Rawls, Dworking and others.

This is how I win all my arguments with people.

'Win' according to who? According to what criteria? I always 'win' my arguments; even though the other guy is rarely convinced. I don't know if I could call this a 'win', though. If you are able to convince people of a free society; fine! But the utilitarian way alone won't cut it indefinitely.

 

Snowflake:

Socialism LOSES to the free market in a utilitarian debate. This is how I win all my arguments with people. You can't sell yourself if you can't take care of all the starving little babies, and frankly, I agree with that. I wouldn't approve of a plan, no matter how metaphysically moral it was, if it meant more people might die. I'm not going to stick my thumb up my @$ and say "well I'm objectively right" while the world goes to crap.

Have you read Long's "Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences?" See especially Part 5.

Anyway, why not use both moral and consequentialist arguments?

AdrianHealey:

I don't know if I agree with this. Economics can't 'justify' anything normative;

Sorry. I meant that property rights can be justified regardless of whatever subjective preferences market participants have.

AdrianHealey:

If and only if you are convinced of the market... You say this, because you are probably familiar with austrian economics (and perhaps with some moral philosophy like Hazlitt's Foundations of Morality), but it one isn't convinced about how the market works, then the utilitarian argument won't work, for obvious reasons.

Right when I say the free market wins, I mean that in a debate between the top socialists and top ancaps, the latter wins.

AdrianHealey:

And not all people always care about 'efficiency'. Note that Mises in Human Action in the chapter on the welfare principle and redistribution doesn't really denounces it per se as 'illegitimate'; he just investigates the reasons advocate and concludes that they are wrong or based on self-interest. But there are ways to evade the remarks Mises made. This is the enterprise of people like Kymlicka, Rawls, Dworking and others.

Right. Personally I focus my arguments as to why the state is a really bad idea rather than attacking wealth redistribution head on. So even if wealth redistribution did have its merits, it wouldn't be possible to implement safely. This obviously dodges the question of wealth redistro in and of itself, but I think its nice to be able to arrive at a libertarian answer without having to plod through the crap that is the state-robinhood argument.

AdrianHealey:

'Win' according to who? According to what criteria? I always 'win' my arguments; even though the other guy is rarely convinced. I don't know if I could call this a 'win', though. If you are able to convince people of a free society; fine! But the utilitarian way alone won't cut it indefinitely.

Right if someone walks away unconvinced thats not really a victory in my book. And its not like I've always won my arguments since I was thirteen. I've lost free market arguments before because I didn't know enough, and I've been a socialist before too. But I've found that if you tailor your rhetoric and focus on the same bad-guys as your opponents have in mind, you can make a lot of headway.

Most liberals will try to get you to apologize for super rich CEOs and corporations extorting workers, but this is a very easy argument to throw back at them because all the truly free market industries are just groovy with everyone, while the worst industries like banking/healthcare are the most government controlled.

Its all about rhetoric with them... once you speak in terms they can understand they'll listen to you. When they say they want more regulation say that you agree with them; but that the best regulation is a system of personal responsibility.

Sage:

Have you read Long's "Why Does Justice Have Good Consequences?" See especially Part 5.

"One might think the reason is purely strategic. Most people are unlikely to find the deontological case for a given course of action compelling so long as they believe it would have terrible consequences; likewise, they are equally unlikely to find the consequentialist case compelling so long as they believe that the action violates human dignity, or equality, or liberty. But while a combination of consequentialist and deontological arguments is most assuredly the best rhetorical strategy for persuading people to accept one’s views, I don’t think it's mainly for rhetorical reasons that would-be persuaders combine both sorts of considerations. On the contrary, the persuaders combine both sorts of considerations precisely because they share with the persuaded a reluctance to accept one without the other. Whatever they may say officially, most consequentialists would be deeply disturbed to discover that their favoured policies slighted human dignity, and most deontologists would be deeply disturbed to discover that their favoured policies had disastrous consequences.

This fact has often led each camp to suspect the other of hypocrisy. The consequentialists say: "Look at all the effort you deontologists put into trying to show that abiding by your principles won’t have counterintuitively disastrous consequences. For example, notice how eager contemporary Kantians are to distance themselves from Kant's claim that it’s wrong to lie to a murderer at your door. Obviously, you deontologists implicitly regard harmful consequences as potential falsifiers of your theory; you’re really crypto-consequentialists, not sincere deontologists with the courage of your convictions." ⁵

And the deontologists can reply in kind: "Look at all the effort you consequentialists put into trying to show that your theory doesn’t license counterintuitively unjust actions. For example, notice how quick contemporary utilitarians are to insist, via such devices as rule-utilitarianism, that they are not committed to sacrificing one innocent person to save ten others. Obviously, you consequentialists implicitly regard sanctioned rights-violations as potential falsifiers of your theory; you’re really crypto-deontologists, not sincere consequentialists with the courage of your convictions."

Sage:

Anyway, why not use both moral and consequentialist arguments?

Right. My initial post focused on the consequentialist side of things because I believe the OP was losing to utilitarian arguments. I think its okay to use both types of arguments though.

 

I would like this question resolved as well. My default thought would be that non created "natural" resources are jointly owned whatever that would mean. But in contradiction to that property rights are supposed to be about conflict resolution and joint ownership increases conflict. I get the feeling if our rule of who gets to own what is who grabbed it first, well just have a buncha grabbers.

....but universal joint ownership of external resources, no ownership of external resources, or severely restricted ownership of external resources, that the correct position was to allow individual absolute ownership of external resources....

is there some distinction between internal and external resources...is internal here seen as ip?

what method of individual ownership occurs if not by  homesteading of non-homsteaded stuff that ends up as a property?

 

 

 

 

Sage:

I think Rothbard's homesteading plan is incomplete.

Sure it is.  Because I think Rothbard is bouncing around ideas in that article, he's "riffing".  I don't think there is any serious theory in what is clearly a politically oriented article.  Unfortunately, the libertarian left has run with this idea that the workers homesteading the factory is legitimate and a means to reward the "landless labourer class" for their toil under the state.  I think such an approach is more about egalitarianism than it is about market based justice and restitution.

Sage:

But Hoppe's position is also clearly incomplete,

I don't have Hoppe's position, and I am not a Hoppean.  My point is that if we're going to compensate people for state intervention, we have to start first with those who have clear claims.  We might not have a clear method of restitution, but we can have clear claims of loss.  To deal with post-state property in any manner other than addressing the most clear claims first, would not be justice in my opinion.  Would you agree?

Sage:

because taxpayers are not the only victims of State aggression.

If one expects material compensation for for non-material, psychological losses, then that's outside the scope of libertarian property rights.  We're into the realm of progressivism.

Because I think Rothbard is bouncing around ideas in that article, he's "riffing".

 

that sounds even more incomplete

liberty student:

To deal with post-state property in any manner other than addressing the most clear claims first, would not be justice in my opinion.  Would you agree?

Not necessarily. Sure, the clearest claims will be easiest to deal with. But shouldn't the most morally serious claims be dealt with first?

liberty student:

If one expects material compensation for for non-material, psychological losses, then that's outside the scope of libertarian property rights.

I was thinking about, e.g. victims of drug laws and immigration restrictions. These are still material, physical losses.

But furthermore, why do you think non-material losses are outside the scope of libertarian rights? Threatening coercion is non-material, but it's still a rights violation.

sthomper:

that sounds even more incomplete

???

Sage:

Not necessarily. Sure, the clearest claims will be easiest to deal with. But shouldn't the most morally serious claims be dealt with first?

What constitutes morally serious?

Sage:

I was thinking about, e.g. victims of drug laws and immigration restrictions. These are still material, physical losses.

As long as there is a measurable loss, then it would count.  But I don't see what is being measured in your examples.

Sage:

But furthermore, why do you think non-material losses are outside the scope of libertarian rights?

Because libertarianism is based on property rights.  The non-material is not property.

Sage:

Threatening coercion is non-material, but it's still a rights violation.

What right is violated?

liberty student:

What constitutes morally serious?

Now we're getting beyond the scope of libertarianism (at least beyond the scope of thinlib). For a virtue ethicist moral seriousness would be determined by how something relates to flourishing.

liberty student:

But I don't see what is being measured in your examples.

Being kidnapped and imprisoned, in the case of drug laws.

liberty student:

What right is violated?

The only right there is: the right not to be aggressed against.

Sage:

Now we're getting beyond the scope of libertarianism (at least beyond the scope of thinlib). For a virtue ethicist moral seriousness would be determined by how something relates to flourishing.

You still haven't answered the question.  What is objectively serious?

Sage:

Being kidnapped and imprisoned, in the case of drug laws.

How would you propose the state payback time and opportunity?  With material property confiscated from others?

Sage:

The only right there is: the right not to be aggressed against.

If I say I do not like you, is that aggression?  If I say I will not trade with you, is that aggression?  If I say I wish you were dead, is that aggression?

What if I only think about killing you but don't say it.  Is that aggression?  What if I tell my friend I want to kill you, but I don't tell you.  Is that also aggression?

We have two very different conceptions of what aggression is.  I believe it is the initiation of force without consent.  If you don't consent to what I say, regardless of what I am saying, does that make my speech aggressive?

I don't think your conception of objective rights is very well defined.

liberty student:

Because I think Rothbard is bouncing around ideas in that article, he's "riffing".

Conza88:

"Although Rothbard made no such qualification in his 1969 statement (written, after all, at the height of his attempt at a coalition with the New Left), he and Hoppe agreed two decades later that an attempt should be made to restore state property to its original legitimate owner before confiscation, if records of ownership still existed."

Here is another Rothbard article, written in 1992, where he restates his position:

Rothbard, How and How Not to Desocialize:

It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: "all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!" This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by "mixing one's labor with the soil" or with other unowned resources.

Desocialization is a process of depriving the government of its existing "ownership" or control, and devolving it upon private individuals. In a sense, abolishing government ownership of assets puts them immediately and implicitly into an unowned status, out of which previous homesteading can quickly convert them into private ownership. The homestead principle asserts that these assets are to devolve, not upon the general abstract public as in the handout principle, but upon those who have actually worked upon these resources: that is, their respective workers, peasants, and managers. Of course, these rights are to be genuinely private; that is, land to individual peasants, while capital goods or factories go to workers in the form of private, negotiable shares. Ownership is not to be granted to collectives or cooperatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralized and chaotic syndicalist form.

I disagree with Rothbard here, for the reasons given by LS. 

Hoppe says much the same thing in Democracy: The God That Failed.  I think they both dismiss without good reasons the idea of creating shares in government property.  Here's Rothbard's reasons:

Rothbard:

Several possible routes have been suggested, but they can be grouped into three basic types. One is egalitarian handouts. Every Soviet or Polish citizen receives in the mail one day an aliquot share of ownership of various previously state-owned properties. Thus, if the XYZ steel works is to be privately owned, then, if there are 300 million shares of XYZ steel company issues, and 300 million inhabitants, each citizen receives one share, which immediately becomes transferable or exchangeable at will. That this system would be impossibly unwieldy is evident. The number of people would be too much and shares too few to allow every person to have a share, and there would be shares of innumerably large numbers and varieties that would quickly descend upon the heads of the average citizen.

Much of this chaos would be eliminated in the suggestion of Czech finance minister Vaclav Klaus, who proposes that each citizen receive basic certificates, which could be exchanged for a certain number or variety of shares of ownership of various companies on the market. But even under the Klaus plan, there are grave philosophical problems with this solution. It would enshrine the principle of government handouts, and egalitarian handouts at that, to undeserving citizens. Thus would an unfortunate principle form the very base of a brand new system of libertarian property rights.

This is a reasonable concern, but I don't think it justifies the 'mutualist' solution, which is plainly unjust.

Hoppe agrees with Rothbard, emphasising the practical difficulties involved in a 'share scheme', like having to create an inventory of all the State's assets and divide them into appropriate units, and having people suddenly owning properties they know nothing about it.  I don't think these practical problems are insummountable, and anyway I don't think this should be about what is most practical or what will have the most utilitarian result.  It should be about what is most just.

I think the most just principle would be to distribute State property to individuals according to how much has been stolen from them.  This can be approximated by the amount of tax individuals have paid. 

I disagree with Hoppe saying distributing shares is unjust:

Hoppe, note 18 on page 130 of D:TGTF:

How can one justify that ownership of productive assets be assigned without considering a given individual's actions or inactions in relation to the owned asset?  More specifically, how can it be justified that someone who has contributed literally nothing to the existence or maintenance of a particular asset - and who might not even know that such an object exists - own it the same way as someone else who actively and objectively contributed to its existence or maintenance?

Hoppe seems to be ignoring that by distributing shares according to how much tax someone has paid, you ARE considering his actions in relation to the owned asset.  It's not perfect, but I think it's better than the mutualist idea. 

Interestingly, Hoppe later says:

Hoppe, page 136 of D:TGTF:

Publicly owned buildings and structures were all financed by taxes... hence, it would appear that it is taxpayers, in accordance with their amount of taxes paid, who should be given title to public buildings and structures... Civil servants are tax-consumers... [and] should be excluded from private ownership of formerly public buildings and structures

This seems to be a contradiction of when he says:

Hoppe, page 126 of D:TGTF:

Regarding socialist property that is not reclaimed in this way [where previous ownership is clear], syndicalist ideas should be implemented; that is the ownership of assets should immediately be transferred to those who work them - the farmland to the farmers, the factories to the workers, the streets to the street workers or residents, the schools to the teachers, the bureaus to the bureaucrats, and so on.  To break up the mostly over-sized conglomerates, the syndicalist principle should be applied to those production units in which a given individual's work is actually performed, i.e., to individual office buildings, schools, streets or blocks of streets, factories and farms.

Is he saying civil servants, bureaucrats, street workers, State school teachers, etc, get to own the formerly public buildings and structures or not?

He seems to brush over this main point, when he says "the streets to the street workers or residents".  Well which is it?  The workers or the 'customers'?  This is the fundamental point.

trulib:

He seems to brush over this main point, when he says "the streets to the street workers or residents".  Well which is it?  The workers or the 'customers'?  This is the fundamental point.

Fantastic post.

liberty student:

Fantastic post.

Thanks.

liberty student:

We're way offtopic.  I want to split this to a new thread, because I can spend all day challenging weak libertarian premises, and the original topic about external property is important.

That's probably a good idea.

[where previous ownership is clear], syndicalist ideas should be implemented; that is the ownership of assets should immediately be transferred to those who work them

 

what is he saying?

the initiation of coercion is not the initiation of aggresion.

agression differs from coercion how?

is coercion agressive action?

 

additionally,  has anyone said what external property is?  is that different than a tv inside a house?

 

different from a lawn chair?

sthomper:

[where previous ownership is clear], syndicalist ideas should be implemented; that is the ownership of assets should immediately be transferred to those who work them

 

what is he saying?

The bit I added in brackets is referring to the first part of the sentence.  "Regarding socialist property that is not reclaimed in this way [i.e. where previous ownership is clear], syndicalist ideas should be implemented; that is the ownership of assets should immediately be transferred to those who work them" 

In the paragraph before, he explains that if government has recently seized someone's property, it is clear that that individual should be given it back immediately.  The syndicalist idea applies only to more complicated cases such as buildings that have been created out of tax money, or where no claimant arises with a legitimate claim to the expropriated property.