Justification of External Property

@ trulib

You haven't put Hoppe's arguments into their proper context. He arguing two different forms of desocialization for two different forms of socialism, namely russian-style and social-democratic-style.

In social democracy the exploited class are the taxpayers, so it only makes sense that the taxpayers are the ones who legitimately own public property. Public servants are mere parasitic beneficiaries from the process. To compensate them would be to add insult to injury.

In the case of russian-style socialism where all production in centrally planned, top down, there are no taxpayers. The exploited are the workers who are compelled to do labour for the state. In this case, it makes sense that they should be the legitimate owners of the factories that they are working in (provided that the original owner who was expropriated can not be found) since they have the strongest claim to it and have 'mixed their labour' with it.

Sage:

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.

Why is it that public property should belong to victims of the state in general? Shouldn't it only belong to those originally expropriated?

There are people who sue the government all the time (Maher Arar, for example) and get money. Is that justice? No, obviously not, because it isn't the government's money to compensate them with in the first place. In these cases, someone is victimized by the government, and the government compels taxpayers to compensate the victim.

as for the state property issue...its mostly worked on by state employees....a different type of state asset

i suppose.

since all are in some way subjected to the state and its assets, auctioning off the asset perhaps would be the best way to unload it.  i believe harry browne said something like that years ago.

proceeds could then be directed to further auction costs.

 

 

 

Sage:

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.

Victims of drug laws and immigration restrictions(?) have a claim against those state agents who initiated aggression against them. They do not have a claim to public property for compensation, because the public property does not legitimately belong to the state agents who aggressed. It legitimately belongs to taxpayers. And the victims of state aggression have no right to be compensated by a third party such as taxpayers.

liberty student:

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?

I'm not convinced. Do you know what Hoppe's position is? Alot of what you've said so far seems to jive with it. I've reflected upon it alot and it seems to be based entirely on property rights considerations. If you can show me how it is not, in a similar way that you demonstrated that the old Rothbardian position did not, I'll totally agree with you.

Stephen:

I'm not convinced.

Ok.

Stephen:

Victims of drug laws and immigration restrictions(?) have a claim against those state agents who initiated aggression against them. They do not have a claim to public property for compensation, because the public property does not legitimately belong to the state agents who aggressed. It legitimately belongs to taxpayers. And the victims of state aggression have no right to be compensated by a third party such as taxpayers.

What do you think about forcing State agents to pay restitution with their own money, e.g. work prisons or wage garnishment? (Of course I mean legitimate employment, not a tax-funded government job.)

Sage:

What do you think about forcing State agents to pay restitution with their own money, e.g. work prisons or wage garnishment? (Of course I mean legitimate employment, not a tax-funded government job.)

Perfectly legit.

Can someone list the pages from Democracy: The God that Failed; that deal with strategy for liberty / de-regulation?

If you could possibly list the pages, I'll be able to photocopy them at the Library. (I'll be buying it eventually and reading the whole thing), but can't wait till then, nor two weeks for shipping.

Thanks alot!

Chapter 6: 'On socialism and desocialization', pg. 121-137. (Democracy isn't a full pledged book, but more a collection of essays.)

Stranger:

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.

I'm familiar with that argument, and it's one I use, but the counter-argument tends to be that there are more options -- perhaps a fusion of the systems (e.g. individual property rights, but a restriction on their use)

@Sage

Thanks for the articles, I like both Schmidtz and Long a lot so I'm interested what they have to say.

@Snowflake

I talk mainly of peace and freedom, and not property, but while I think peace and freedom are only possible within the context of absolute individual property rights, I would defend my property rights against those who didn't believe in property rights -- i.e. I would force my belief on them, just as I would force my belief in individual liberty on those who might seek to infringe it. In this case I'd like to justify such a principle.

Thedesolateone:

I would defend my property rights against those who didn't believe in property rights -- i.e. I would force my belief on them

Well, i don't believe in absolute property rights, at least in practice... its up to the market to decide what are and what aren't. For example, some types of ownership that might be justified by the homesteading principle may in reality be too expensive for anyone to bother about enforcing.

Honestly the best way to go for an anarchist isn't property rights... you can use rhetoric like "Don't I own myself???". But they'll just concede that it would be nice for everyone to have self ownership but maybe there should be redistr of wealth to help poor people bla bla.

Its much easier to use pragmatic arguments against the state, like incentive problems of being a monopoly that is also judge in its own case. No matter how bad they think anarchy is, making one entity judge, judy, and executioner is not a solution. Even if it was a solution to one problem, it obviously breeds a host of others...

Once you've established that the state is useless, you can talk about how property rights are very useful things and use similar arguments to mises. Even if you buy the moral libertarian arguments I don't think they will be so effective against bleeding heart liberals. They have their hangup on poor black teenage single mothers. Maybe cus of white guilt, maybe cus they can make everyone else feel guilty. Either way, if you're going to reach these people you have to save the world for everyone.

Fortunately, anarchism allows us to be capitalists.

There is also an earlier argument made in "De-socialization in a United Germany." (especially p.21-25)

It argues the syndicalist method but not the taxpayer-shareholder method. I believe he adopted the "taxpayer-shareholder method" for social democracies as a secondary position after questioning the justice of handing over public property to tax-recipients.

Stephen:

@ trulib

You haven't put Hoppe's arguments into their proper context. He arguing two different forms of desocialization for two different forms of socialism, namely russian-style and social-democratic-style.

In social democracy the exploited class are the taxpayers, so it only makes sense that the taxpayers are the ones who legitimately own public property. Public servants are mere parasitic beneficiaries from the process. To compensate them would be to add insult to injury.

In the case of russian-style socialism where all production in centrally planned, top down, there are no taxpayers. The exploited are the workers who are compelled to do labour for the state. In this case, it makes sense that they should be the legitimate owners of the factories that they are working in (provided that the original owner who was expropriated can not be found) since they have the strongest claim to it and have 'mixed their labour' with it.

Thanks for clarifying.  I understand Hoppe's position now.  In long-standing russian-style socialist countries, we have no way of knowing how much each individual has been exploited, so we don't know how much property he is entitled to post-desocialization.  For social-democratic socialist countries, for Hoppe, there will be no syndicalist-type privatization: all will be returned to taxpayers. 

Did Rothbard take the same position, do you know?  I see now that his entire article 'How And How Not To Desocialize' is referring to ex-Soviet states.  While most of the article applies to social-democratic states also, the part where he describes privatizing public buildings does not (I hope).

trulib:

Did Rothbard take the same position, do you know? 

There is no written work to suggest that he did. However, Hoppe and Rothbard were close friends and colleages and held virtually identical positions for most of their careers.

trulib:

I see now that his entire article 'How And How Not To Desocialize' is referring to ex-Soviet states.  While most of the article applies to social-democratic states also, the part where he describes privatizing public buildings does not (I hope).

The chapter "On Socialism and Desocialization" largely repeats much from "De-socialization in a United Germany". He just extends his analysis further to cover social democracies. I wish I had the book in front of me but I lent my copy out a while ago. I remember him saying that to hand over public property to tax-funded public servants would be adding insult to injury.

perhaps a fusion of the systems (e.g. individual property rights, but a restriction on their use)

then calling the property right something else may be more appropriate....'limited usage grants'  from all-high or someting else.