Political Theory

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Spideynw — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:38:02 GMT

Kenneth:
Questions: What do you think of this? What is your solution to this if it is very difficult to trace legitimacy of ownership?

That at least 5% of the population stop paying/obeying the government until it goes broke and disappears, then the market can take care of property distribution.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Kenneth — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:30:37 GMT

"I understand. But you would still have to consider if there are more legitimate landowners to be expropriated than illegitimate landowners. So in relation to what you said about utilitarianism, cost-benefit is a factor."

I take this back by the way. The reason land reform is so difficult to make a stand on is that almost all the land reform policies in underdeveloped countries are hit-and-miss. Common policy expropriates both legitimate and illegitimate landowners. We are not trying to create a land reform policy here, just deciding if we should support current land reform policies. So are you willing to expropriate landowners regardless of legitimacy of ownership or not? Or maybe you take a cost-benefit stance depending on the legitimacy of the majority to be expropriated?

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Kenneth — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:40:37 GMT

I understand. But you would still have to consider if there are more legitimate landowners to be expropriated than illegitimate landowners. So in relation to what you said about utilitarianism, cost-benefit is a factor.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Nitroadict — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:13:17 GMT

MarketFundamentalist:

More globalization is the answer.

If you don't elaborate, I'm going to assume you're an idiot. Agrarian reform and/or localism are completely at odds with globalism. Explain?

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Marko — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:15:28 GMT

I am not sure what that changes? Because we live in the confines of a statist world do you therefore propose we come out against the police going after thieves? That we speak up for decriminalization of theft because it is inevitable the police are going to frame some people for theft?

We are consistently in favour of property rights. There is no other position. The context plays no role in it. We are in favour of police defending property rights of victims of theft and we are against the police jailing innocents accused of theft. We are in favour of expropriation of thieves and we are against expropriation of rightful owners.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Kenneth — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:08:22 GMT

I agree that it is ideal for illegitimately owned land to be returned to the descendants of the legitimate owners. But would you really trust the state with it's hit and miss land reform policy? When the proponents of land reform are communists who don't give shit about private property? When it's virtually impossible to trace legitimate ownership except for those obviously illegitimate landowners owning thousands of hectares? When land reform would lead to bloodshed in the countryside?

For all the elegance of Rothbardian ethics, you must remember that the question is set in the context of a statist world.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

MarketFundamentalist — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:44:13 GMT

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Marko — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:51:22 GMT

Cortex:

At least in the Habsburg empire, abolition of serfdom was not a land reform. Abolition of serfdom meant that the aristocrats didn't have a say in personal life of the former serfs anymore. Like who the serfs could marry or if whether they could leave the village.There was an option for the serfs to buy the land they were working on from the aristocrat, but there was no forced redistribution of property.

Even after the abolition, the former serfs were still obliged to perform "robota" - to work on the aristocrat's land for free for certain amount of time evver week. Alternatively they could pay money, it was up to the aristocrat. Serfdom was abolished in 1781, "robota" was abolished in 1848, first serious land reforms took place after World War I.

Serfdom was finally abolished in Austria in 1848. It was accompanied by land reform with monetary compensation for nobility. The compensation was 2/3 of the value of the land. 1/3 of that was paid by the state, 1/3 by the peasant.

It was a land reform not a market transaction. The noble could not decide that he was not going to accept the compensation and not relinquish his hold on the land. It was not "buying".

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Vitor — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:52:42 GMT

Kenneth:

I'm happy to hear how market forces successfully 'redistributed' land in Brazil. Can you show me links on this? I can relate with you about the land reform movement. The political party that combines maoist and stalinist doctrines in the Philippines wants to brainwash the otherwise docile peasants and rouse them to support Land Reform. What Byzantine said is very true. The wealthiest landowners in the Philippines hire mercenaries to exterminate the opposition.

Here the agrobusiness is quite dinamic, the typical "land owner" was replaced by business men. Brazil is the world largest producer of soy, orange, sugar, coffee, ethanol (from cane, subsideless and very profitable), cattle for beef, chicken.

The land reform movements are quite lost when it comes to anything agritucultural, nowdays they got more people from cities that has zero experiencie with agriculture. The big problem we have here is that the state doesn't respect the right to an owner defend his property, if a bunch of rufians start to invade and wreck your farm, you cant shoot them. (and it's nearly impossible to obtain guns legally here)

Here are some videos of the land reform folks doing what they do best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQKO7B85C0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXxNllZAsJU

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Cortex — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:21:24 GMT

Marko:

Byzantine:

Marko:
Not true. Abolition of serfdom worked out very well in 1789-1918 Europe.

I don't recall that involving the forcible redistribution of landholdings.

I don't think the French Revolution or World War I turned out very well either.

Oh, so the aristocracy relinquished their hold voluntarily?

At least in the Habsburg empire, abolition of serfdom was not a land reform. Abolition of serfdom meant that the aristocrats didn't have a say in personal life of the former serfs anymore. Like who the serfs could marry or if whether they could leave the village.There was an option for the serfs to buy the land they were working on from the aristocrat, but there was no forced redistribution of property.

Even after the abolition, the former serfs were still obliged to perform "robota" - to work on the aristocrat's land for free for certain amount of time evver week. Alternatively they could pay money, it was up to the aristocrat. Serfdom was abolished in 1781, "robota" was abolished in 1848, first serious land reforms took place after World War I.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Stranger — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:38:44 GMT

Marko:

Oh, so the aristocracy relinquished their hold voluntarily?

During the industrial revolution in England it was common for the aristocrats to go broke and sell their land off to the rising capitalist class. The reason was that the capitalists were attracting labor to the cities and it became impossible to conduct agrarian business the old way.

The point to remember is that serfdom only works by controlling capital. Once the capital owners can freely compete with each other, there is nothing that can keep serfdom in place.

Re: What is the libertarian position on Agrarian Reform?

Marko — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:47:48 GMT

Byzantine:

Marko:
Not true. Abolition of serfdom worked out very well in 1789-1918 Europe.

I don't recall that involving the forcible redistribution of landholdings.

I don't think the French Revolution or World War I turned out very well either.

Oh, so the aristocracy relinquished their hold voluntarily?

Byzantine:

Who decides 'legitimacy?' And more importantly, who enforces it?

What, you're saying there is a legitimate function of the state that can not be performed by the market?