I've been discussing why private property rights exist with a friend, and I'm not really sure where to look to find an answer. My friend thinks that any ownership of land is illegitimate at an 'intellectual level', but on the practical level (because he thinks that there is no accurate discriminator between who owns land and who doesn't) he believes that a liberal state should support private property while also having "common land".
He thought that my reasoning for the existence of private property was circular because I'm saying that "first use entitles ownership" and that "ownership also allows use". Does anyone have an answer for me as to why it is not circular reasoning to suggest that homesteading is a legitimate way to claim ownership?
First, perhaps you should suggest to your friend that he bring his intellect into the practical world. Sounds like he has a conflict between fantasy and reality.
Second, first use is a means to settle ownership claims. The reason why private property ownership is reality, has to do with the scarcity of goods in the physical world, and that only one person can own a particular object or tract of land at one time.
There is no such thing as common land. Your friend, pardon me for saying this, sounds like a typical liberal. Holding so many conflicting fantasies that he can't come up with something that makes sense in the physical world.
I'm sure someone will be along to offer reading material on these subjects...
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
I'm going to respond to this in reverse, if you do not mind...
volition:He thought that my reasoning for the existence of private property was circular because I'm saying that "first use entitles ownership" and that "ownership also allows use".
This is by no means circular. Your friend took a very linear thought and went out of his way to bend it back around and call it "circular." A quick review of first use just to make sure we're on the same page... If you cut a tree into firewood logs (on property that nobody owns, mind you), then would it not be you who now owns the tree (now in the form of logs)? Of course, and, as I'm sure you know, this because you combined your labor and energy (something you own) with something nobody owned. Therefore, the offspring of this union now belongs to you, naturally... I mean, having a child works the same way, except that in this scenario joint "ownership" occurs (not that people really own people, though), versus the former scenario where only you own the logs (since the tree cannot jointly own itself). So, to conclude this, you now own logs that you can make further use of.
Therein lies the problem with what your friend said. Of course, first use allows ownership, but ownership does not allow first use, which is what your friend is basically saying here when he calls it circular... although he omitted the word "first" when saying that "ownership also allows use." Only by implying the word "first" could he call this circular, but at that point the whole thing becomes illogical, so his point still does not really stand. Really, it works like this: first use allows for ownership, and ownership allows for further use, which is not circular. Hopefully this wasn't too convoluted--I feel like I could have said most of that better. Oh well.
volition:but on the practical level [...] he believes that a liberal state should support private property while also having "common land".
The logic that you are putting forth makes more sense in regard to this. You might try to better explain the idea of first use and all that it implies, especially if he feels that is the primary reason for a state. It is silly to make such a grand jump from no government to big government over what comes down to an issue of erecting a fence.
Your friend needs to remove his "intellect" from this utopian world without scarcity. The fact is if there were no such thing as scarcity we wouldn't need property, both political philosophy and economics would be redundant.
I wonder how your friend would settle this issue without resorting to the homesteading principle? One can claim land through merely saying it? Or perhaps everybody owns the whole earth by virtue of being born, this of course, includes his body. Both of these fail since by the first I could claim your body to be mine and by the second you couldn't move without violating my property.
Of course, the other solution is that nobody owns anything, which is ultimately untrue.
So here comes the only other solution, the moment it immediatly becomes mine, to do with it what I desire. How is that circular?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
See here. Hoppe provides arguments in The Economics & Ethics of Private Property for why the first-use principle is the only defensible one. I think you can find it online.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: See here. Hoppe provides arguments in The Economics & Ethics of Private Property for why the first-use principle is the only defensible one. I think you can find it online.
Here: http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf
Thanks for your responses guys. I tried to explain that rather than it being a case of "use entitling use" (as he puts it), that the distinction first use entitling further use was meaningful but he seems to think I'm just trying to dress it up differently.
He also rejects first use first ownership because:
1. There are no 'authoritative' courts - He keeps thinking that if 2 ppl took a land dispute to court and one lost the case, that person would just never accept the verdict and leave them in a stalemate. He also seems to think that its bad because there is nothing stopping ppl from bringing frivolous land cases about land that someone might already live on.
2. it favors the ppl who can go around claiming land
3. it allows for total ownership by very few individuals
So in response to him I said that:
1. Those 2 ppl should be taking their case to a private court whose verdict they are prepared to accept, if one of them is not willing to take it to court then that would be a sign of dishonesty. It seems his main problem with this is that it relies on people caring about their reputation.
2 + 3 look like they're the same thing but I wasn't really sure how to answer this. I think that for the most part people would be able to claim a bit of land for themselves, but I wasn't sure how to show that this would be true.
So am I missing anything with my explanations? For the most part, it seems like his problem with anarchy is.... that it is not enough like government lol
volition: 2. it favors the ppl who can go around claiming land 3. it allows for total ownership by very few individuals
People cannot claim land under the first use-first own principle. Ownership requires use or transformation of the land. I would guess that under such a system ownership would be much less concentrated (There would be no claimed land being parcelled out to the politically powerful, etc).
Ask your friend what resource allocation system would be more just than the first use-first own/homesteading principle.
volition: 1. There are no 'authoritative' courts - He keeps thinking that if 2 ppl took a land dispute to court and one lost the case, that person would just never accept the verdict and leave them in a stalemate. He also seems to think that its bad because there is nothing stopping ppl from bringing frivolous land cases about land that someone might already live on.
Does this have anything to so with the justness of property allocation? Seems like a separate issue to me.
Red-herring/nonsense. Current courts are not "authoritative"; they derive their legitimacy from a state-imposed monopoly. They will force anyone who questions their judgments to obey, though. Anarchist courts can always go ahead and trial the defendant in absentia. So long as it's a legitimate court, the decisions of which are widely respected, this will have any variety of consequences. So this objection is just meaningless blather.
Yes, it favours people who actually put the land to first use. And?
No, it doesn't. Merely claiming land or doing away with the requirement that some intersubjectively ascertainable change be made to it, on the other hand, could do that.
volition:1. There are no 'authoritative' courts - He keeps thinking that if 2 ppl took a land dispute to court and one lost the case, that person would just never accept the verdict and leave them in a stalemate. He also seems to think that its bad because there is nothing stopping ppl from bringing frivolous land cases about land that someone might already live on.
That can just as easily happen with a monopoly, in fact there's a greater opportunity of this happening when the state has a monopoly on arbitration in fact. The state has no incentive to be fair in it's ruling, and will always favour itself/ the politically connected. As for the person not accepting the verdict it's rather obvious that such courts would have the opportunity of ensuring that any verdict reached in the court would be binding. As for the frivolous lawsuits, well they'd have to be and so long as they did they'd have every right to make a case about the land.
volition:2. it favors the ppl who can go around claiming land
And? People have no incentive to do this unless the land has value. So all they're really doing is bringing valuable land into use. How is this bad?
volition:3. it allows for total ownership by very few individuals
You mean like states that claim to own land say, the size of Russia? No, it doesn't. People can only claim that land that they create an objective link with, which doesn't just mean putting a fence around in claiming it to be theirs. Most land was homesteaded before markets came into being, which means most people had little reason to acquire more land then they could use. In any case what's the issue here? If people can still make a profit will large sums of land then it shows they're providing a valuable service. If demand for land becomes so high it'll be more profitable to sell it.
Locke proclaimed that all inferior creatures and the earth itself are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap