Anarchy And Property

[Aloysius]

These topics seem to be dancing around the phorum of late; me as the protagonist of the one question (property) and folks like Sternhauser and King's Rook's Pawn the protagonists of the other question (state authority)

I now propose an alliance of sorts on one particular point between the two rather unpopular ideas, that is 'distributism' and 'anarchy'... and I center that proposed alliance upon a definition of 'property'

I contend that 'property' as we know it today is contingent upon the state. We conceive of the existence of property ownership over things which are not truly possessed by people, property ownership that exists on paper... that exists, quite frankly, only in the view of the law. Let me set up the obligatory analogy of some particular case, however unrealistic it might be, I think I'd choose for the case of ease "a man who lives in New York City who owns a field in Kansas".

Now, I have proposed that the man in New York City cannot, in fact, according to natural law, own that field in Kansas precisely because he lives in New York City. How is it that he is able to do so? It would seem to me that it is only because the laws of the State of Kansas, the State of New York City, and the Federal Government recognize that ownership that he really has claim to that field in Kansas.

Now, to be sure, he made a voluntary agreement with the previous owner of the field in Kansas that gave him that 'ownership'... but it gave him that ownership by writing it into the law that he owned it. without that law, the voluntary agreement is nothing... because the man who made the voluntary agreement is no longer in the picture. the only people left are the man and perhaps the people he pays to tend the field.

Without state interference, it seems to me that ownership would be in essence defined by those who use the field. That is what ownership is, Aquinas' definition of ownership [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article2"]is essentially the claiming of the use of a thing[/url], then ownership left up to natural law without government authority to coerce would be much more similar to the type of ownership I advocate: ownership which is simply the claim to own that which one uses.

unless you think that the man in New York City has the right to coerce other men in Kansas against using that field for their own benefit. Can he enforce an 'ownership' which exists on paper only through threat of force? If so, how would that be different from having coercive governments, except that now any individual becomes the coercive element trying to defend his own 'property'?

.

[Anomaly]

In Distributism, what would stop you from establishing a homestead in Yosemite? You could clear some land and start cutting/milling lumber for you fellow homesteaders.

[Didymus]

Unless I'm off track here, Distributism doesn't advocate dividing up all common property, but only that property which is necessary the well-being of each family.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Didymus

[Aloysius]

Anomaly, I think your question is more directed at anarchy. Under anarchy what would stop me from dividing up Yosemite? Under distributism, I'm sure the just authority of the government would, after all, such common lands should be defended by the public authority to defend their common ownership by all people and give all access to them. But all of that is beside the point to this thread, please don't derail it I'm just trying to find some common ground with the anarchists...

[King's Rook's Pawn]

Aloysius:

I guess you're talking about something similar to mutualism, which considers property rights to be rooted in current occupancy and use (you own whatever resource you currently possess). This is distinct from a more Lockean conception of property rights, which defines them according to [i]first[/i] occupancy and use (whoever obtains the resource first takes ownership of it).

My problem with mutualism is that it seems to deny full property rights even to those owners currently using their property. If I truly own it, why do I not have the right to transfer that ownership to someone else? Does the farmer who owns the field in Kansas have the right to [i]give[/i] his land to his daughter his Oregon? Does he have the right to donate it to a charity? Does he have the right to rent it out?

Also, according to this perspective, it seems that every time the farmer leaves his property, it falls out of his ownership. If he wants to go on a two-week vacation, for example, or even if he wants to go shopping, it seems that someone else could simply come along and take the "abandoned" television and stereo in the farmhouse! You may say that this is different because the farmer is planning to return, but how do we know that the man in New York won't decide to go to Kansas to live on the farm himself?

[quote]Can he enforce an 'ownership' which exists on paper only through threat of force? If so, how would that be different from having coercive governments, except that now any individual becomes the coercive element trying to defend his own 'property'?[/quote]

It's different because he acquired the property through legitimate means. If, hypothetically, the current US federal government had acquired the territory of the United States through first use and voluntary exchange principles, I would say that it is indeed the legitimate owner of that property and could do almost everything it does now. Though it is difficult to see how anyone could legitimately obtain such a large amount of property.

You can have distributism, though, by joining a group of people who choose to live according to distributist principles. I speculate that a truly free economy would indeed lead to a broader distribution of property because there would be more competition, which would probably lead to firms being smaller and more numerous. That's just my speculation though.

[Aloysius]

I've only briefly browsed over some mutualist thoughts in the past, and never really looked into them that much. I've developed this understanding of property through Fr. Vincent McNabb who cites Thomistic principals as his reasoning.. but if it's 'mutualist' to some extent, then sounds like the mutualists have some good ideas.

the reason the current owner is unable to transfer ownership to someone distant who does not use it, who does not live on it, is because there is no such thing as that type of ownership. your question presupposes that it is even possible to own things at such a great distance when one does not live there oneself. I suggest that it is only possible to do so because the law makes it possible. the property owner's right to sell his land isn't limited... he has no more right to sell it to the man in New York than he does to sell it to a pink unicorn--neither of those people are capable of owning it, unless the man from New York moves to Kansas or the pink unicorn suddenly becomes real. for the same reason he can't give it to his daughter in Oregon unless his daughter moves there to use it.

"how do we know that the man in New York won't decide to go to Kansas to live on the farm himself? "
until he does so, he cannot own it. he can make arrangements so that he will own it upon moving there; set some payment plan down or even pay all the capital then; but the actual transfer of ownership doesn't really come until and unless there is a transfer of actual possession. once he has purchased the land, he can certainly leave on travels; but he can only have one home location... and he can only own things in his home location. so if the clever man in New York wanted to say "well, I'm just on an indefinite vacation here from my field in Kansas", well then, if we really took him at his word and believed him there'd be no way he could own anything in New York, because he doesn't live there. but such absurd loopholes are only possible under the rule of law anyway, and I'm trying to partially propose this as an anarchist or panarchist idea... again, it is the coercive element of the state and its laws which even establishes the possibility of the man in New York owning that field.

temporary leave from a place one owns does not remove one's physical power over the place when that place remains one's home; a moral power still connects the person to his home, and the physical power is only temporarily taken leave of... so long as one is capable of returning and intends to return, there is certainly a type of extended physical power there. the physical power being the physical power to return to his home. he still has every interest in the world there because that's where he lives and will return. I suppose I don't quite know how this works in anarchy, except that the man's right to the land is already accepted by social agreement with his neighbors and they would do him an injustice to try to move in on it while they knew him to be on vacation.

certainly some degree of social institution protects the idea of property, what I (and apparently the mutualists) am proposing is that this social institution be more connected to the use of it and such things. reducing the argument ad absurdum with the example of a vacation is not destroying the argument, it's just showing that the principal shouldn't be applied to the extreme. not that it shouldn't be applied at all.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='03 November 2009 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1257227923' post='1995611']the reason the current owner is unable to transfer ownership to someone distant who does not use it, who does not live on it, is because there is no such thing as that type of ownership.[/quote]

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with it. Ownership is not based on current occupancy and use, but on first occupancy and use. Otherwise, I fail to see how a person does not abandon his land whenever he leaves it. Also, does this only apply to land or does it apply to other forms of property? If I leave my gold bullion in a safety deposit box in the bank, is it no longer mine because I am no longer directly possessing it? What if I leave it buried in my backyard. Theoretically, this might mean that I don't own anything unless I hold it in my hands. You'll say that's "reductio ad absurdum," but I am skeptical of any principle that [i]can't[/i] be taken to it's logical extreme.

[quote]the property owner's right to sell his land isn't limited... he has no more right to sell it to the man in New York than he does to sell it to a pink unicorn--neither of those people are capable of owning it, unless the man from New York moves to Kansas or the pink unicorn suddenly becomes real.[/quote]

Property ownership should be unconditional except in that it infringes on someone else's rights. It does not infringe on anyone's rights for the farmer to transfer his claim to someone else. It's a claim based on first use that matters.

He can claim to have sold it to a pink unicorn, and if some third party decides to squat on it, that will be a problem if the pink unicorn shows up to claim it and takes the squatter to court.

[quote]"how do we know that the man in New York won't decide to go to Kansas to live on the farm himself? "
until he does so, he cannot own it....temporary leave from a place one owns does not remove one's physical power over the place when that place remains one's home[/quote]

I see these statements as contradictory. How come the man in New York has to justify his intent be going there, but, for the farmer, the intent is enough? Of course, the farmer had inhabited the land previously, but remember that the farmer transferred all of his rights and claims to the man in New York when he sold it.

[quote]I suppose I don't quite know how this works in anarchy, except that the man's right to the land is already accepted by social agreement with his neighbors and they would do him an injustice to try to move in on it while they knew him to be on vacation.[/quote]

You would still have law provision institutions/governments/courts to arbitrate disputes and enforce claims and contracts.

Edited November 5, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Aloysius]

skeptical of any principal that can't be taken to the extreme? wow. well, my response I suppose is that you don't quite understand the principal itself. built into the principal itself is the understanding that it's not what your extreme reduction claims it is.

the principal is not that one has to have it in one's hands to own it: the principal is that one must have regular use of it, regular physical power over it. temporary leaves from that regular use do not take away the fact that the person has consistent regular use of the property. it is obvious to anyone that there's a difference between a man on vacation from his property and a man with property far away from his home. one's property, simply put, must be where one's home is. and one ought only to have one home, because one only has one body and thus can only really have one home. you cannot own one thing in New York and one thing in Kansas, you must either own one or the other, because you are not omnipresent.

in short, your misunderstanding lies in you thinking that I contend that a man's physical presence at any given point in time determines what he's capable of owning. I am not saying that, I am saying that a man's regular physical presence is what gives him the capability of owning, his regular ability to use something is his physical power over it. in taking my principal 'to the extreme', you actually create a [i]different [/i]principal made of straw which you can easily attack.

ad absurdum, since your principals can only be trusted when they're testable to extremes, may I ask: if a singular rich man was able to entice every landowner in the world into selling him their property, so that he would then have dominion over the whole world, would that be a permissible thing? a possible thing? I contend that it would not be, because the whole world was given by God to the whole human race for use and no single man has the right to own the whole thing, because everyone has the right to it. similarly, no man in New York has the right to keep Kansans from owning a particular plot of land in Kansas, even though one individual owner in Kansas tried to give that right to him. because while you might say that there is no one in the world rich enough to buy out the whole world... it may just be that there are people rich enough to buy all of Kansas if they wanted to. I simply don't see them having the capability of doing so, because they have no regular power over all of Kansas... no singular person could have regular power over all of Kansas.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ive always based part of my arguments for giving bootstraps etc etc, on the idea that how people gain vast amounts of wealth could only be the case due to man made law. andor artificial technology etc.

i like the idea of drawing to anarchy, cause it says 'what if there were no government?' government is more a practical thing than something that actually would have to exist. how would we live without taht practical thing? the man Al always talks about, or i talk about, cannot own something on the other side of the planet if he has no dominion over it. (in my views... he can but only if it's not causing a lack of bootstraps to someone else) (eg, that hypothetical i always used about a giant who owned all the earth except a small patch of it, where a family wanted to branch off). in teh real world, you would have a right to do what it takes to get teh livlihood necessary to live. and that means stepping onto 'his property' and taking soke apples from 'his tree'. now i dont condone just goign to take thigns from people indiscriminately and randomly, but there ya have it.

anarchy is a good analogy of what would have to be and should be, and is, the case in teh natural order of things, minus the government etc. folks who oppose me and Al, are opposing the natural law.

Edited November 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]ad absurdum, since your principals can only be trusted when they're testable to extremes, may I ask: if a singular rich man was able to entice every landowner in the world into selling him their property, so that he would then have dominion over the whole world, would that be a permissible thing? a possible thing? I contend that it would not be, because the whole world was given by God to the whole human race for use and no single man has the right to own the whole thing, because everyone has the right to it. similarly, no man in New York has the right to keep Kansans from owning a particular plot of land in Kansas, even though one individual owner in Kansas tried to give that right to him. because while you might say that there is no one in the world rich enough to buy out the whole world... it may just be that there are people rich enough to buy all of Kansas if they wanted to. I simply don't see them having the capability of doing so, because they have no regular power over all of Kansas... no singular person could have regular power over all of Kansas.[/quote]

this is essentially where i started ever making arguments about bootstraps etc. the hypothetial i always talk about, of the giant man owing all the earth except a small patch. it doesn't matter if it's not a practical hypothetical, it's possible in principle, so it matters what we'd do in that situation. and id argue that it translates to the current situations of excess wealth and poverty- i wonder if there's anyone who would agree with me in the more extreme situations but just no as it translates to the here and now? id see that as more plausible, for sure.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='04 November 2009 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1257385127' post='1996340']
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with it. Ownership is not based on current occupancy and use, but on first occupancy and use. Otherwise, I fail to see how a person does not abandon his land whenever he leaves it. Also, does this only apply to land or does it apply to other forms of property? If I leave my gold bullion in a safety deposit box in the bank, is it no longer mine because I am no longer directly possessing it? What if I leave it buried in my backyard. Theoretically, this might mean that I don't own anything unless I hold it in my hands. You'll say that's "reductio ad absurdum," but I am skeptical of any principle that [i]can't[/i] be taken to it's logical extreme.



Property ownership should be unconditional except in that it infringes on someone else's rights. It does not infringe on anyone's rights for the farmer to transfer his claim to someone else. It's a claim based on first use that matters.

He can claim to have sold it to a pink unicorn, and if some third party decides to squat on it, that will be a problem if the pink unicorn shows up to claim it and takes the squatter to court.



I see these statements as contradictory. How come the man in New York has to justify his intent be going there, but, for the farmer, the intent is enough? Of course, the farmer had inhabited the land previously, but remember that the farmer transferred all of his rights and claims to the man in New York when he sold it.



You would still have law provision institutions/governments/courts to arbitrate disputes and enforce claims and contracts.
[/quote]

it looks like he's trying to weasle way out of what he knows better about. it's about what you are capable of possessing, not waht you technically do or do not possess. (and as for my arguments... it's about what you own in excess but only to the extent it infringes upon another's right to a minimum)

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='05 November 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1257466276' post='1996828']
the principal is not that one has to have it in one's hands to own it: the principal is that one must have regular use of it, regular physical power over it. temporary leaves from that regular use do not take away the fact that the person has consistent regular use of the property. it is obvious to anyone that there's a difference between a man on vacation from his property and a man with property far away from his home.[/quote]

Define "regular use." What about a person who has a vacation house they only use once every couple of years?

[quote]
if a singular rich man was able to entice every landowner in the world into selling him their property, so that he would then have dominion over the whole world, would that be a permissible thing? a possible thing?[/quote]

It would be permissible in theory, provided he acquired his property legitimately. However, I doubt such a thing is practically possible. For a man to legitimately purchase all the land in the world, he would have to have already legitimately acquired enough money or other goods to trade to all landowners (also remember that the price of land would probably rise as he purchased and hoarded more and more of it). Property, be it land, money, or whatever, can only be [i]legitimately[/i] acquired through work: you either have to labor to homestead previously unowned property (meaning you must acquire it through first use and/or occupancy) or you have to exchange property you homesteaded for property another person homesteaded or you have to exchange your labor for such property. You might also legitimately acquire property if the owner gives it too you freely, but the owner would have had to acquire it through legitimate means as well. An inheritor, for instance, did not labor for his wealth, but his father or great-grandfather did and freely gave the wealth to him. So people in a free market don't just become "rich" out of thin air; they acquired their wealth through legitimate means, which must involve labor at some level.

For example, the man in New York wasn't just able to buy the land in Kansas because, for some mystical reason, "he was rich." He somehow had to have obtained that capital through the principles of first use and voluntary exchange.

But once a person [i]legitimately[/i] acquires property, they are free to do whatever they like with it, except use it to aggress against others, and that necessarily includes the right to transfer their claim to another person. Property isn't just whatever you have, it's a claim of legitimate authority (there's that term again) over such property. You are sovereign over that property, because you obtained through legitimate means.

[quote]I contend that it would not be, because the whole world was given by God to the whole human race for use and no single man has the right to own the whole thing, because everyone has the right to it.[/quote]

"The whole human race" is an abstraction; it can't own anything or possess any rights. It has no will. Only individual humans can think and act and own.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='06 November 2009 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1257542844' post='1997340']it's about what you are capable of possessing, not waht you technically do or do not possess.[/quote]

It's about what you have the legitimate right to possess. Whether or not you're physically capable of enforcing your right is a different issue.

[quote]it's about what you own in excess but only to the extent it infringes upon another's right to a minimum)
[/quote]

There's no legitimate legal prohibition against "excessive property" provided the property was obtained through legitimate means.

Edited November 7, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Aloysius]

let's remember here that we're talking about this in anarchist terms; I'm not saying that the legal system prohibit these ownerships (at least, I'm not saying that in this particular thread), I'm saying that in the absence of a state the enforce these contracts made over a distance that gives the man in New York a paper that says the land belongs to him, property can and should be defined by the society in this way.

to the example of a vacation house, I would say that the man has no capability of "owning" it; he only owns the right to use it occasionally, through some agreement with the local community where the vacation house is. the house itself belongs to the local community, not to the man who only spends vacations there; he should have to rent it and thus have to pay money into the local economy of the place to which he travels on vacation for the right to use their location for his vacation.

the whole human race owns the whole earth, that's a Catholic truth. it's the inheritance of Adam. the partitioning of that ownership through different social conventions is what's up for debate, and I contend that this partitioning can only exist in terms of proximate living and regular use... because anything else is an arbitrary and fictitious arrangement which can only exist because a state authority has established it as existing.

and again, I said practically it couldn't happen; but practically it could happen that a singular man own all of Kansas and wish not to sell a single acre of 'his property' because he enjoys the power he has by owning all of that land. and then suddenly no one in Kansas has the ability to own any land, due to the tyranny of a singular land owner with his 'legitimate' voluntary agreements with the individuals who owned that land before (not a voluntary agreement with all the people in Kansas, who are the ones who no longer have the right to own any of the real property of Kansas). could all the landowners in Kansas thus forfeit the ability of the entire rest of Kansas to own land by selling it to a singular man who does not wish to sell it back?

if you haven't noticed, the point of the world-owning argument is that it presents a principal that can be applied down to a small scale... down to owning all of a state, or all of a particular county (which, I think I've heard of counties with such arrangements, though I could be mistaken) or all of a particular city. hey, it could be applied historically to the ownership of the wealthy aristocrats of England over the majority of the property in Ireland... can we really consider it permissible for the landowners to make it impossible for the rest of the people in a given area to no longer have the ability to own anything? based upon a principal of ownership disconnected from actual use and proximity that is enforced by state coercion?

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='08 November 2009 - 03:28 AM' timestamp='1257665338' post='1998133']
let's remember here that we're talking about this in anarchist terms; I'm not saying that the legal system prohibit these ownerships (at least, I'm not saying that in this particular thread), I'm saying that in the absence of a state the enforce these contracts made over a distance that gives the man in New York a paper that says the land belongs to him, property can and should be defined by the society in this way.[/quote]

A market anarchy of kind described be people like Spooner, Molinari, and Rothbard would still have law and law enforcement institutions with the goal of defending property and contract rights.

[quote]
to the example of a vacation house, I would say that the man has no capability of "owning" it; he only owns the right to use it occasionally, through some agreement with the local community where the vacation house is. the house itself belongs to the local community, not to the man who only spends vacations there; he should have to rent it and thus have to pay money into the local economy of the place to which he travels on vacation for the right to use their location for his vacation.[/quote]

How did the "local community" obtain this property? Only individuals can hold property, unless certain individuals enter into a voluntary contractual agreement to pool their property.

[quote]the whole human race owns the whole earth, that's a Catholic truth.[/quote]

"The whole human race" owns nothing and can own nothing. "The whole human race" is an collective entity with no singular will of its own. Only individuals can homestead resource; therefore, only individual can legitimately hold property. Didn't you read what I said about how individuals come to own property? It's not an arbitrary thing. It's not simply that whoever holds a title deed from the state legitimately owns it. It can only be legitimately owned through homesteading, through first occupancy. The first occupant of a plot of land owns it and has sole, sovereign authority over it. No other person has any authority or claim to it. But the first occupant, being the sole and sovereign authority, has the authority to transfer his claim, with all the rights pertaining thereof, to anyone else. This is a natural rights issue.

[quote]I said practically it couldn't happen; but practically it could happen that a singular man own all of Kansas and wish not to sell a single acre of 'his property' because he enjoys the power he has by owning all of that land. and then suddenly no one in Kansas has the ability to own any land, due to the tyranny of a singular land owner with his 'legitimate' voluntary agreements with the individuals who owned that land before (not a voluntary agreement with all the people in Kansas, who are the ones who no longer have the right to own any of the real property of Kansas). could all the landowners in Kansas thus forfeit the ability of the entire rest of Kansas to own land by selling it to a singular man who does not wish to sell it back?[/quote]

In theory, if all the legitimate landowners voluntarily gave their land to one person, he would own it. So what? It wouldn't infringe on anyone else rights. "The entire rest of Kansas" (e.g. all non-land-owning individuals within Kansas) didn't own the land in any case. If a man somehow managed to purchase all of the diamonds in the world, would this be unjust, because no one else could own a diamond? Of course, these are hypothetical situations that would never occur in reality.

I might add, how can you be opposed to this as inherently unjust yet favor states? The difference between states and landowners is primarily that states did not acquire their land legitimately.

[quote]it could be applied historically to the ownership of the wealthy aristocrats of England over the majority of the property in Ireland[/quote]

No, it couldn't because those aristocrats didn't obtain their land legitimately: through homesteading or through voluntary exchange. They stole it through conquest.