Political Theory

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

Fool on the Hill — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:07:13 GMT

"All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law."
~ Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoilation of their predecessor."
~ Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

vive la insurrection — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:48:20 GMT

You do good to quote Stirner, but Human Action (the primitive force / atomic fact) is the consequence of such an ontology. As Mises points out, there is no "mystic comuinon" - all action / perspective is within the scope and invention of a creative-destructive unique entity.

Stirner gives birth to and anchors Weber, Menger, and Mises.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

Clayton — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:29:28 GMT

My general views on law are expressed here.

The basic idea is that law emerges from trial-and-error, not through theorization. Hence, theoretical considerations are less important than what works. But deciding what works, too, is not a theoretical matter. It cannot be solved by armchair thinking. Not legislators, not judges, not law professors, not economists (not even Austrian ones), not religious leaders, no one can cogitate law.

The only way to figure out the what the law is for people to try different solutions to their disputes until they find the ones that tend to work (keep the peace). This is as true of property law as any other kind of law.

Clayton -

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

Minarchist — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:08:56 GMT

The labor theory of property operates in the moral realm, and the subjective theory of property operates in the empirical realm. To say that a person owns that with which he's mixed his labor is to make a moral claim: namely, that he should be recognized as the owner of that property, whether in fact he is so recognized is another question. Whereas, to say that a person does own whatever property others around him recognize as being his property is simply to describe empirical reality - whether a person is the legitimate owner (per LTP) or not, he who is recognized as the owner is the effective owner.

The LTP informs the STP, in that it tells the members of society on what basis they should recognize someone as the owner of property.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

LiberTed — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:21:19 GMT

Those were great articles in pointing out the problems with the ltp!

What do you mean by "...Or perhaps it's not necessarily inconsistent at all...?" ?

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

John James — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:02:18 GMT

LiberTed:
EDIT. Well I guess the original point is that even though Austrians claim to have a consistent philosophy, the "Labour theory of property" is not consistent with "The subjective theory of value".

Perhaps that's why Austrians don't exactly subscribe to an all out Lockean "Labour theory of property"

Contra the “Labor Theory of Property”

Hume on Intellectual Property and the Problematic “Labor” Metaphor

Producer, Entrepreneur, and the Right to Property

John Locke and the Labor Theory of Value [PDF]

...Or perhaps it's not necessarily inconsistent at all...?

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

LiberTed — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:28:19 GMT

Well maybe it isn't and maybe there is no point.

Perhaps it is the name thing that threw me off. However, by thinking about this I have certainly gained a lot more insight and understanding on social valuing and maybe that is the point.

EDIT. Well I guess the original point is that even though Austrians claim to have a consistent philosophy, the "Labour theory of property" is not consistent with "The subjective theory of value".

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

John James — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:46:41 GMT

LiberTed:

I agree and i propose that the same is true regarding property.

Prices can be viewed objectively, but they are composed of many people's different valuing.

In a community, ownership, recognition of ownership and "property rights" would emerge as a sort of social norm. Through spontaneous order if you will. These could then also be viewed objectively, such as prices.

I argue that this happens because people tend to want to avoid conflicts, out of self interest.

For the third time, this is nothing new. I'm still waiting for the point to any of this.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

LiberTed — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:22:24 GMT

I agree and i propose that the same is true regarding property.

Prices can be viewed objectively, but they are composed of many people's different valuing.

In a community, ownership, recognition of ownership and "property rights" would emerge as a sort of social norm. Through spontaneous order if you will. These could then also be viewed objectively, such as prices.

I argue that this happens because people tend to want to avoid conflicts, out of self interest.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

z1235 — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:36:26 GMT

Max Stirner via Fool on the Hill:

"Let me say to myself, what my might reaches to is my property; and let me claim as property everything that I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as far as I entitle, i.e.—empower, myself to take."

~ Max Stirner

Sure, until someone drags you back to the woodshed and shoots you like the beast that you are. Property is what remains after evolution has hindered the procreation of the proponents of all other alternatives. The reason why you don't just take the iPod lies in your genes given to you by your ancestors who wisely decided to not simply take any donkey to which they gave themselves title.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

Fool on the Hill — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:07:13 GMT

"Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant—for possession is not yet property, it becomes “mine” only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the—law. [...]

What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor’s power, full power, empowerment.

Everything over which I have might that cannot be torn from me remains my property; well, then let might decide about property, and I will expect everything from my might! Alien might, might that I leave to another, makes me an owned slave: then let my own might make me an owner. Let me then withdraw the might that I have conceded to others out of ignorance regarding the strength of my own might! Let me say to myself, what my might reaches to is my property; and let me claim as property everything that I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as far as I entitle, i.e.—empower, myself to take."

~ Max Stirner

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

mikachusetts — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:34:18 GMT

Proponents of "The labour theory of property" claim that there are an objective way of determining ownership, in the same way as proponents of "The labour theory of value" try to claim that there are an objective way of determining prices. However, the ltv is not true and we determine price according to our subjective values and I argue that we do the same with property.

Saying that we determine price according to our subjective values is extremely misleading. The reality is, prices are determined by the subjective values of only 2 marginal pairs: the last buyer and first excluded seller at the top, and the last seller and first excluded buyer at the bottom. Its only the valuations of those buyers and sellers who define prices, not everyone and anyone.

Going back to property and ownership then, it becomes clear that simply comparing it to prices won't do us any good, because prices are more complicated than the catchphrase of subjectivism. More importantly, our ability to know prices (as opposed to how prices come about) is objective - it is not a private matter. In other words, even though prices would not exist at all in the absence of human valuation, so long as they do exist, that information is out in the world and NOT subjective. The same goes for ownership: so long as someone is an owner, that information is verifiable by anyone, its not a subjective matter.

I would try dropping the terms objective and subjective, and see what's left. It might clear up a lot of confusion.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

Wheylous — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:31:11 GMT

I am simply putting forth the idea that ownership and recognizing ownership is based purely on self interest and not on some natural or objective right.

I used to believe in objective property rights (without any reason, that is), but then I realized that they're not objective in the sense that you can say that they are "right" in the void.

Now I'm trying to come up with a way to show that rights are objective in the sense that given purpose A, rights are the way to go. And if A = having as "nice" a society as possible, then property rights are the proper approach.

I hope to do this sometime soon.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

LiberTed — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:23:35 GMT

I agree, that is why I compare property to prices instead.

Proponents of "The labour theory of property" claim that there are an objective way of determining ownership, in the same way as proponents of "The labour theory of value" try to claim that there are an objective way of determining prices. However, the ltv is not true and we determine price according to our subjective values and I argue that we do the same with property.

Re: Labour theory of property vs Subjective theory of property

LiberTed — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:11:27 GMT

I am simply putting forth the idea that ownership and recognizing ownership is based purely on self interest and not on some natural or objective right.