Hi,
I ran into an anarchist blog post arguing for ownership for use only.
Basically, he argues, in the tradition of Benjamin Tucker, that land should belong to whoever uses it, as opposed to who first appropriated it, transformed it, or acquired it in voluntary exchange.
So the argument is calling for the illigitimacy of rent, as a revenue derived from ownership without use.
My perpective on the subject is that there's major problems with this proposition.
First, from a natural law perspective, obviously, is a violation of the freedom of contracts. I can't control a resource, then do a voluntary exchange with someone else according to some terms. I.e. I can't build a house, then rent my house to someone else willing, since according to this principle, the house would become the tenant's property as long as he uses it.
Then, why stop there? If I go out for a day-trip, no one is using the house, why isn't someone else allowed to take possession of it?
Why would somone mearly using someone's elses property becomes the owner of it? If I don't use my iPod for a week, why should anyone be entitled to take it and use it as its own?
Since I don't use one of my kidney, why isn't someone else wanting to use it be entitled to take it from me?
Second, from an utilitarian perspective, obviously, incentive to produce would be massively curtailed, since produced good can be appropriated at anytime when not directly in use. It would be truely a state of primitive hunter-gatherer, where no one would produce anything, and/or constantly focused on homesteading currently owned resources, or seeking which of other people's property he can expripriate by starting to use them.
Anyhow, my question is: Is anyone in this forum able to make an persuasive defense of such principle?
Because it seems obviously flawed to me.
Marek K Nowak:Anyhow, my question is: Is anyone in this forum able to make an persuasive defense of such principle?
There used to be a few people who tried, but I don't think there is anyone anymore. Maybe Brainpolice, but he's not known for finishing debates.
You could try the forums of the libertarian left, run by Wombatron. The language and tone there can be pretty vulgar and hostile though, don't expect a polite discussion.
sorry for my language, but this is retarded principle, because renting a land is also using it, it's part of the entrepaneurship, as far as I know. I don't get it how could anyone defend this principle. I need to think more about it. Even though I do not believe in ownership of a land, but I wouldn't argue such principle.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Tucker's theory is flawed in what sense? In the sense that it leads to a lower standard of living than our current capitalistic definition of property? If you are going to call something flawed on consequentialist grounds then you are doing nothing more than saying "This is what I like, therefore this is what EVERYONE should like". You cannot maintain that something is flawed based on an arbitrary value judgement. It is only flawed if it self-contradictory/fallacious etc
Individualist anarchism makes NO general consequentialist claims concerning wealth, therefore to judge it on that basis is just a giant strawman.
Tucker's theory is flawed in what sense? In the sense that it leads to a lower standard of living than our current capitalistic definition of property? If you are going to call something flawed on consequentialist grounds then you are doing nothing more than saying "This is what I like, therefore this is what EVERYONE should like". You cannot maintain that something is flawed based on an arbitrary value judgement. It is only flawed if it self-contradictory/fallacious etc Individualist anarchism makes NO general consequentialist claims concerning wealth, therefore to judge it on that basis is just a giant strawman.
1) I didn't say that the principle of 'ownership' for use was self contradictory, I said it was a violation of freedom of contract, and leading to general impovrishment.
2) Saying that a social order, such as one in which property rights are not recognized, lead to a lower and subsistance level standard of living is a valid argument against it. Because the standard of living is a subjective concept, and the argument implies that for each individual, his own standard of living in his subjective opinon would be reduced, is not an argument akin to "I don't like it, therefor it's bad".
3) On the contrary, an argument in favor of such order would be that "I don't like rent, therefor I don't think anyone should charge rent" is attempting to promote a personal preference to the rank of a general rule. In a free anarcho-capitalist sociery, organized by strickly property right principle, if one doesn't like land rent, he has the choice of either not renting out his own land, or purchasing his own land, hence not paying rent.
What one is not free in an anarcho capitalist society, is for one for expropriate property owners on the arbitrary justification that they don't appear to be using it at any point of time, which is what the 'ownership for use only' implies.
4) I don't think you understand the meaning of "strawman".
Very good point regarding the act of renting, being a use-relation as well.
Why are you against ownership of land, then?
I've never really understood why the ownership for use principle should lead to rent not working, since rent is a way of using something. I do sympathize in that I don't see the intuition Locke calls for as to why incorporating something into my ongoing plans should imply I get exclusive use of it forever.
As a renter, arguing against renting, and ignoring its many benefits, is just asinine.
I'm pretty confused about the idea of renting too. I figure that I should be able to make someone pay me rent if they want to live in a house I either paid for or built (assuming they don't want to buy the house). But, at the same time, how much time has to go by before people can claim an 'abandoned' house for themselves? My house may not have anyone living in it for 10 years but the maintainence cost is so low that I have no real reason to rent/sell. Clearly, though, if someone wants to live in that 'abandoned' house after they realize no one has lived in it for 10 years, there's still a demand. I don't get when the ownership ends (if it even does).
I also rent, but I wonder if the selling price for houses would decrease dramatically if no one rented.
Brian Anderson:I also rent, but I wonder if the selling price for houses would decrease dramatically if no one rented.
What purpose does this line of reasoning serve? I find the premise irrelevant. People like to rent. It's like contemplating the price of apples pretending a situation where no one likes apples. Such a situation seems a bit fictitious.
Brian Anderson: I'm pretty confused about the idea of renting too. I figure that I should be able to make someone pay me rent if they want to live in a house I either paid for or built (assuming they don't want to buy the house). But, at the same time, how much time has to go by before people can claim an 'abandoned' house for themselves? My house may not have anyone living in it for 10 years but the maintainence cost is so low that I have no real reason to rent/sell. Clearly, though, if someone wants to live in that 'abandoned' house after they realize no one has lived in it for 10 years, there's still a demand. I don't get when the ownership ends (if it even does). I also rent, but I wonder if the selling price for houses would decrease dramatically if no one rented.
When you rent, you sign a contract, or lease that spells out the terms. If you are renting for 10 years, I'm sure there would be a lease spelling out you've been there for that long, not to mention, a trail of rent payments to follow showing that you were paying the landlord to be there. This, amongst other things, would allow others to realize that it is not your property and you were in fact renting.
If someone tries to take over a house, thinking that it is abandoned, when it is in fact not, it would probably go to court and both parties would have to prove ownership.
As to your last point, why would there ever be a point in time when no one is renting? How would this scenario ever come to be?
I see you're not using the $100 in your pocket. I better use them instead (?)
Such a situation seems a bit fictitious.
It's fictitious right now. We were discussing what would come of a house if the owner/builder of the house left it alone for 10 years without maintaining it, and then someone came along and tried to homestead it. Would the original builder/owner have any say of whether they new people could stay in the house or demolish it to build a new home? Technically he may have just abandoned it, but it's a hypothetical situation.
That was my question. Can someone claim ownership of a house after not maintaining it for 10 years? You could probably leave a cabin in the middle of the woods for a few years without maintaining it - assuming it's old-style with no air conditioning and all - but would that mean someone could move in after a certain period of time without the owner checking up on it? If so, who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned?
Marek K Nowak: Why are you against ownership of land, then?
because I believe it is impossible to own land. I believe in homesteading.
Brian Anderson: Who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned?
Who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned?
Decides a person, who wants to take over it. He must be aware, that if the house is actually owned by someone, he will face the consequencies of tresspassing etc... I think :) If house is locked, etc, then obviously someone is owning it. I don't know for sure, I think it also depends on the laws in that neibghourhood.
If land cannot be owned how does one resolve disputes of:
If so, who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned?
Bingo. It is arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, it is not a lawful principle.
filc: If land cannot be owned how does one resolve disputes of: Home Sizes Housing Placements Fencing Yard, luxuries like pools ect...
DRO.
Marko: If so, who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned? Bingo. It is arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, it is not a lawful principle.
yes, just like the age of consent, or "lawful age" (to sign contracts, etc.)
I believe that homesteading is merely used in natural law terminology to describe the method in which a human individual can have a legitimate claim of ownership over previously unowned resource. The natural law does not state what you should do with this resource once you have finished the original appropriation, which meaning is contained in the method of homesteading. It does not oblige the individual who performed the homesteading to use the resource for shelter, or for heating himself, or to produce clothes. It also does not oblige him to be the only one who has physical contact with it, which means that it does not exclude everyone else, the ones he would not like to invite and the ones he would like to invite.
If what you are saying is valid, then, for example, if an individual homesteads 1000 acres of land, and is not capable of cultivating it by himself, and decides to invite other people to join him into "using the land", then the moment a guest begins using a piece of it - it is now his property. Or what if the individual does not want to do farming anymore and decides not to do any work on the land, but rather to leave all of it to other people, and in exchange he will collect a sum of money that is payed according to a contract.
If what you are suggesting is "who uses the resource is the owner" is implemented - then no division of labour will be there and criminality will be very high.
MaikU:DRO.
Huh?
If house is locked, etc, then obviously someone is owning it. I don't know for sure, I think it also depends on the laws in that neibghourhood.
I feel like, if you didn't agree with the laws of the neighborhood, you'd just declare yourself sovereign. That just sounds like a government to me. I'm still confused on how laws would be formed and everything in an an-cap society, though, so I might have to research it more. So far I've been recommended Chaos Theory and one other (I'd have to look it up on the past forums), but do you have any other recommendations for book about an-cap legal systems?
Marek K Nowak: "I ran into an anarchist blog post arguing for ownership for use only. " I don't believe in this property theory(YET!) but I have been considering it recently and if justified it makes a lot of sense so I'll do my best to show why here but I'll tell you now I don't have a justification for it.I remain a lockean. " that land should belong to whoever uses it, as opposed to who first appropriated it, transformed it, or acquired it in voluntary exchange." Your proposing that the latter kinds are not kinds of use which they are.Lockeanism and occupancy and use are in agreement on initial homesteading. "So the argument is calling for the illigitimacy of rent, as a revenue derived from ownership without use." Makes sense since if this property theory is true then the landlord is not the owner but like a government taxing a population. "Then, why stop there? If I go out for a day-trip, no one is using the house, why isn't someone else allowed to take possession of it?" Strawman. Use is not the same as perpetual use. It's in the title - occupancy and use. If you have all your property in the house and are using it currently even if not that very second then that's still use and your still occupying it even if not at that moment. Plus in an anarchist society no one in their right mind would want a definition of property which allows you to take others property if they go out for a walk or on holiday.That'd be crazy. "Since I don't use one of my kidney, why isn't someone else wanting to use it be entitled to take it from me?" It's in your body and working therefore you do use it.Straw man.
"I ran into an anarchist blog post arguing for ownership for use only. "
I don't believe in this property theory(YET!) but I have been considering it recently and if justified it makes a lot of sense so I'll do my best to show why here but I'll tell you now I don't have a justification for it.I remain a lockean.
" that land should belong to whoever uses it, as opposed to who first appropriated it, transformed it, or acquired it in voluntary exchange."
Your proposing that the latter kinds are not kinds of use which they are.Lockeanism and occupancy and use are in agreement on initial homesteading.
"So the argument is calling for the illigitimacy of rent, as a revenue derived from ownership without use."
Makes sense since if this property theory is true then the landlord is not the owner but like a government taxing a population.
"Then, why stop there? If I go out for a day-trip, no one is using the house, why isn't someone else allowed to take possession of it?"
Strawman. Use is not the same as perpetual use. It's in the title - occupancy and use. If you have all your property in the house and are using it currently even if not that very second then that's still use and your still occupying it even if not at that moment.
Plus in an anarchist society no one in their right mind would want a definition of property which allows you to take others property if they go out for a walk or on holiday.That'd be crazy.
"Since I don't use one of my kidney, why isn't someone else wanting to use it be entitled to take it from me?"
It's in your body and working therefore you do use it.Straw man.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
"I'm pretty confused about the idea of renting too."
It's only 'use' in the most vague loose sense.In the absurd sense -following the idea of this theory anyways- that giving something something is still using it.
As the theory's name implies the user and occupier is the owner.
The hole that causes confusion in this and related areas, I think, has to do with the idea of property. It's assumed, mistakenly in my opinion, that property could mean something in a Crusoe situation (what it's supposed to mean, I suppose, is that Crusoe owns everything) and an attempt to generalize that to a situation with more people. In reality, property is meaningless in a Crusoe situation. So, when Friday arrives, what happens? The idea of property now comes into existence, but not in response to abstract philosophical principles. Rather, it comes into existence depending on agreements between Crusoe and Friday. This generalizes a full-scale society by the recognition that property is really an agreement among the society, not an abstract idea. We shouldn't argue for a definition based on a philosophy, but for a definition based on what works.
>>Rather, it comes into existence depending on agreements between Crusoe and Friday
Does it? Are you saying Crusoe cannot exclude Friday from the Island he has homesteaded without Fridays agreement?
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
Are you saying he can? Even if you want to say he's "homesteaded" the entire island (did he do labor everywhere?) there are proportionality constraints here, and we generally would not think trespassing deserves death.
But, on the other hand, what's in Crusoe's best interest? Trade benefits all parties, so it makes sense that he'd actually want Friday to stay on the island, and survive, so that he can contribute to the economy. So, what do they do? They negotiate where Friday will be, and where Crusoe will be. Presumably, they need privacy to masturbate and so on.
Of course they can negotiate, and of course there may be good reason for Crusoe to make a guest of friday, or a gift of property or whatever else; I am not concerned with these possibilities,
I am concerned with the possibility you have forbidden which is that Crusoe wants to be alone, and had homesteaded the property Friday has arrived on.
Outside of freak coincidences, the individual whose judgment is best at deciding a land site's most value-productive allocation will not be the same person as the individual whose specific skilled labor is best suited for working the land. And humans qua consumers are served best if land sites are allocated to their most value-productive uses. Benjamin Tucker's plan would harm the interests of virtually all of humanity, since we are all consumers. Whether it is more or less "naturally right" is byplay.
Well, I don't think he has homesteaded it prior to Friday's arrival, as I think homesteading can only take place in a context where it means something to exclude. But even if he had, no, I don't think he gets to sentence Friday to death, life comes before property.
We should keep in mind the basic, fundamental intuitions involved in being libertarians. Do we really want to allow property agreements to take those away? If we develop ideas that lead to "its ok to starve people to death to defend your property" we need to rethink what we're doing.
Hey, take your complaints to Locke then, too, he required labor to get the land. Of course, the problem looks to be easily resolved - for instance, the person who knows the best use can buy the land, and if he doesn't have the money, he can use investors.
>>But even if he had, no, I don't think he gets to sentence Friday to death, life comes before property.
you are the only one who spoke of death. does he have the right to sentence friday to being excluded from his property? if you say no, i don't think your theory of negotiation is anything other than a theory of collectivising property. For If I come into your home and you must negotiate with me and find my terms that I require you meet such that I will agree to leave, where is the private property?
Ownership is use.
There is no dichotomy.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
but island is not the same thing as "home" in our society.
They're on an island. There's nowhere else to go. This is not the case with a house. Now, if your house were surrounded by other houses, and you didn't have any arable land, or a helicopter, then yes, you have a right to go through my house to get out.
Noone, because occ/use is more of a qualatative than quantative notion, I.E. it does not necessarily determine a particular time-standard for abandonment. What determines whether or not something is no longer in use enough to merit ownership has more to do with the context of the situation in general, including the general state of the property in question and the claimants relation to it. The reductio arguments along the lines of "so if I walk away from my car...?" confuse occ/use for an overinflated standard of perpetual use that noone actually believes in. These things can be cleared up by emphasizing that it's about the context of particular cases. I don't think of occ/use in terms of a very specific universal rule providing some set-in-stone quantative standard of abandonment. Absentee land ownership is not reducible to considerations about time.
ok, I see what you have in mind. Crusoe is on a tiny dingy in the ocean and suddenly a hand comes up out of the waves, followed by an arm and a head, and the man friday is trying to crawl into the dingy. a lifeboat situation. and property is to be decided by negotiation. But does your theory require a lifeboat situation, if not why the emphasis on the lifeboat situation? or If so then isn't your theory *really* that situational necessity determines property and negotiation comes second ?
What I'm talking about isn't simply a matter of life-boat situations. I mean a state of affairs in which someone completely isolated geographically from the property and has no involvement in the use and improvement of what's within a territorial boundary maintains a perpetual legal title to ownership and hence decision-making and rule-making power, while at the same time another individual or group of individuals transform it through their use and labor (which does happen over time, but it's not reducible to a particular time standard). Death isn't the threat so much as a lack of decision-making input over one's own life due to existing inside of a territorial domain that someone else has the title to. That is essentially what peasant societies consists in.
Well, I don't think I have a theory. I think I have more of a limitation on what a theory should include. That aside, the real question I'm addressing is what ought to be seen as primary - is property some philosophical given, or is it something we define?