Kevin Carson: As we have seen, arguments for the superiority of one set of property rules over another can be established only on consequentialist grounds (i.e., on the basis of prudential assessments of how they lead to results consistent with commonly accepted ideas of "fairness"), and not deduced from principle. Any decentralized, post-state society, following the collapse of central power, is likely to be a panarchy characterized by a wide variety of local property systems. For them to coexist peacefully, all three property systems must reflect the understanding of their most enlightened proponents. Those favoring each of the property system must be willing to admit that it is not self-evidently true, or at least be willing to acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area. Bill Orton, who favors Lockean (or "sticky") property, has made some provocative observations on how property metasystems have coexisted in the past, and speculations on how they are likely to do in the future. The three major metasystems we have examined in this section are agreed that aggression is bad. The reason they come into conflict is that they differ greatly in how they define "aggression." Accusations of aggression or initiation of force, according to Orton, result from conflicting property overlays. "Liberty (and initiation of force) is defined in terms of property rights...."51 ....(almost) nobody claims to initiate force. When people accuse others of different political persuasions of initiating force, they are using their own property overlay, their own standard of property. Judged from his own property overlay, he is not initiating force at all. E.g., if you favor sticky property, then squatting is a no-no. If you favor possession property, squatting is just fine. The conception of "force" is different, due to the differing system of property.52 In the past, proponents of one or the other metasystem have often been lacking in the forbearance needed to coexist peacefully with other property systems. And today, many libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists see the very existence of other property systems as an affront. Yes, there are some anarcho-socialists who would attack people who use sticky property, and there are some anarcho-capitalists who would attack people who use usufruct property. If you don't believe this last, look back at comments related to aboriginal peoples--you see claims that it's okay to loot their hunting grounds because... they don't have deeds, they don't recognize private ownership of land, etc. But ownership is objective--it doesn't matter if they recognize it. They've either separated it from the [unowned] commons, mixed their labor and personality with it..., or they haven't.53 Saying "all market anarchists" are tolerant of usufruct arrangements is grossly mistaken. People on this very board have "justified" US grabs of Indian land on the basis of arguments like: they didn't recognize sticky property, they didn't officially claim it, so they have no property rights." Other rabid quasi-Randroids deem usufruct "collectivist" arrangements as downright evil, and to be obliterated. Make no mistake, there do exist many intolerant market anarchists.54 Orton expressed hope for peaceful coexistence of property systems, after "separation of property and state": If ancapistan turned anti-capitalist, I probably wouldn't notice. I believe that without a State capitalism and socialism are harmonious and non-conflicting. Sure, you may call it a syndical or mutual, while I call it a firm with restricted transfer of ownership. You may call it a commune while I call it a household. Whatever. Of course, hypothesizing that everyone will have the same economic ideology after separation of Econ and State is like saying that everyone will become atheist after separation of Church and State. No, just as there are various religions and denominations and cults with disestablishment, similarly there will be all sorts of economic arrangements with statelessness. There will be more, not fewer, economic experiments, just as the number of religious cults proliferated. Thus, the answer to your question will most likely turn out to be: Move to the next block, or a mile down the road, or simply change the people you deal with. But the main answer would be: Who cares? The commies look just like capitalists to me. Who cares about the economic school of the guy who grows your potatoes or bakes your bread?55 I've come to the conclusion that both socialists and capitalists would benefit from a stateless society. Even if there is predominance of one form or the other, I think it would be easy and mellow to start a minority enclave. Certainly a damn sight easier than going up against a State! But I seriously doubt that any particular property form will dominate. There'll be every kind of property arrangement that you can imagine, and many more you can't. When religion was disestablished, when it went anarchist, did everyone become an atheist? Did the Catholic Church, or any other church or religion dominate?56 The coexistence of different systems of property in a panarchy would require an agreement by all parties to respect the rules established by majority consensus in each area, along with an arbitration system for disputes: Now, for the dispute at hand [between syndicalist workers and a dispossessed capitalist], the property theories of the disputants are different, so "who is the aggressor" is at issue. By the usufruct theory, the returning capitalist is the aggressor; by the sticky theory the syndicalist workers are the aggressors. There can be no internal theoretical resolution. To avoid violence, some kind of moderation or arbitration is almost certainly necessary. The disputants could agree upon a wise arbiter, one without bias for or against either type of property system, to settle the issue. E.g. Wolf De Voon, who has made it clear that he thinks property amounts more or less to what the neighbors will allow. He would probably judge based on local custom and expectations of the parties involved. E.g. If the factory were located in an area where sticky property dominates, where the capitalist had reasonable expectation of sticky ownership, where the local people expect the same, and the syndicalist workers came in from a 'foreign' culture expecting to pull a fast one, then he'd probably judge in favor of the capitalist. OTOH If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the 'foreign' culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers. Neither property system can be proved to be correct. Proof requires agreement on a set of axioms. Capitalists and syndicalists don't agree on the axioms concerning property, so proof is impossible. So it's force or arbitration, and we all know which is better in the long run.57
As we have seen, arguments for the superiority of one set of property rules over another can be established only on consequentialist grounds (i.e., on the basis of prudential assessments of how they lead to results consistent with commonly accepted ideas of "fairness"), and not deduced from principle. Any decentralized, post-state society, following the collapse of central power, is likely to be a panarchy characterized by a wide variety of local property systems. For them to coexist peacefully, all three property systems must reflect the understanding of their most enlightened proponents. Those favoring each of the property system must be willing to admit that it is not self-evidently true, or at least be willing to acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area.
Bill Orton, who favors Lockean (or "sticky") property, has made some provocative observations on how property metasystems have coexisted in the past, and speculations on how they are likely to do in the future. The three major metasystems we have examined in this section are agreed that aggression is bad. The reason they come into conflict is that they differ greatly in how they define "aggression." Accusations of aggression or initiation of force, according to Orton, result from conflicting property overlays. "Liberty (and initiation of force) is defined in terms of property rights...."51
....(almost) nobody claims to initiate force. When people accuse others of different political persuasions of initiating force, they are using their own property overlay, their own standard of property. Judged from his own property overlay, he is not initiating force at all. E.g., if you favor sticky property, then squatting is a no-no. If you favor possession property, squatting is just fine. The conception of "force" is different, due to the differing system of property.52
In the past, proponents of one or the other metasystem have often been lacking in the forbearance needed to coexist peacefully with other property systems. And today, many libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists see the very existence of other property systems as an affront.
Yes, there are some anarcho-socialists who would attack people who use sticky property, and there are some anarcho-capitalists who would attack people who use usufruct property. If you don't believe this last, look back at comments related to aboriginal peoples--you see claims that it's okay to loot their hunting grounds because... they don't have deeds, they don't recognize private ownership of land, etc. But ownership is objective--it doesn't matter if they recognize it. They've either separated it from the [unowned] commons, mixed their labor and personality with it..., or they haven't.53
Saying "all market anarchists" are tolerant of usufruct arrangements is grossly mistaken. People on this very board have "justified" US grabs of Indian land on the basis of arguments like: they didn't recognize sticky property, they didn't officially claim it, so they have no property rights." Other rabid quasi-Randroids deem usufruct "collectivist" arrangements as downright evil, and to be obliterated. Make no mistake, there do exist many intolerant market anarchists.54
Orton expressed hope for peaceful coexistence of property systems, after "separation of property and state":
If ancapistan turned anti-capitalist, I probably wouldn't notice. I believe that without a State capitalism and socialism are harmonious and non-conflicting. Sure, you may call it a syndical or mutual, while I call it a firm with restricted transfer of ownership. You may call it a commune while I call it a household. Whatever.
Of course, hypothesizing that everyone will have the same economic ideology after separation of Econ and State is like saying that everyone will become atheist after separation of Church and State. No, just as there are various religions and denominations and cults with disestablishment, similarly there will be all sorts of economic arrangements with statelessness. There will be more, not fewer, economic experiments, just as the number of religious cults proliferated. Thus, the answer to your question will most likely turn out to be: Move to the next block, or a mile down the road, or simply change the people you deal with.
But the main answer would be: Who cares? The commies look just like capitalists to me. Who cares about the economic school of the guy who grows your potatoes or bakes your bread?55
I've come to the conclusion that both socialists and capitalists would benefit from a stateless society. Even if there is predominance of one form or the other, I think it would be easy and mellow to start a minority enclave. Certainly a damn sight easier than going up against a State! But I seriously doubt that any particular property form will dominate. There'll be every kind of property arrangement that you can imagine, and many more you can't. When religion was disestablished, when it went anarchist, did everyone become an atheist? Did the Catholic Church, or any other church or religion dominate?56
The coexistence of different systems of property in a panarchy would require an agreement by all parties to respect the rules established by majority consensus in each area, along with an arbitration system for disputes:
Now, for the dispute at hand [between syndicalist workers and a dispossessed capitalist], the property theories of the disputants are different, so "who is the aggressor" is at issue. By the usufruct theory, the returning capitalist is the aggressor; by the sticky theory the syndicalist workers are the aggressors. There can be no internal theoretical resolution.
To avoid violence, some kind of moderation or arbitration is almost certainly necessary. The disputants could agree upon a wise arbiter, one without bias for or against either type of property system, to settle the issue. E.g. Wolf De Voon, who has made it clear that he thinks property amounts more or less to what the neighbors will allow. He would probably judge based on local custom and expectations of the parties involved. E.g. If the factory were located in an area where sticky property dominates, where the capitalist had reasonable expectation of sticky ownership, where the local people expect the same, and the syndicalist workers came in from a 'foreign' culture expecting to pull a fast one, then he'd probably judge in favor of the capitalist. OTOH If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the 'foreign' culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers.
Neither property system can be proved to be correct. Proof requires agreement on a set of axioms. Capitalists and syndicalists don't agree on the axioms concerning property, so proof is impossible. So it's force or arbitration, and we all know which is better in the long run.57
From Mutualist Political Economy. Relevant to some current debates, especially the Anarcho-Socialist thread.
To liberty student: That's ok! It happens
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Oh geez! I'm sorry Wombatron. I hit edit when I meant to hit reply!
Can you repost it? SORRY!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
wombatron:To liberty student: That's ok! It happens
Thanks. I felt bad. Need to slow down.
The coexistence of different systems of property in a panarchy would require an agreement by all parties to respect the rules established by majority consensus in each area
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:The coexistence of different systems of property in a panarchy would require an agreement by all parties to respect the rules established by majority consensus in each area Majority consensus ? Not the kind of world I'd like to live in.
The point that he is trying to make is that no property system will survive unless a majority of the people in an area agree on it. Its really just an extension of common law, which can be thought of as a consensus on justice.
I enjoyed this. :)
Agreed.
This is what I am talking about. Majority decision doesn't allow for individual or minority property rights. What a crock.
Wombatron, some anarcho-communists (from my understanding) do not believe in self-ownership. If they have a majority, can they determine that I do not own myself?
wombatron:The point that he is trying to make is that no property system will survive unless a majority of the people in an area agree on it. Its really just an extension of common law, which can be thought of as a consensus on justice.
What if there is a concensus that children can be beaten? Or what if there is a concensus that face slapping or kicking is not coercion?
The problem with refusing to find an objective definition of property, is that we resort to majoritarian rule.
Sometimes this forum makes me feel bad, because it seems people are far more concerned with populism and socialism than they are with justice and liberty.
I'm neither a populist or a socialist. The title post of this thread is merely an exposition on polycentric law and free market arbitration in light of property conflicts.
liberty student: Agreed. This is what I am talking about. Majority decision doesn't allow for individual or minority property rights. What a crock. Wombatron, some anarcho-communists (from my understanding) do not believe in self-ownership. If they have a majority, can they determine that I do not own myself?
No, and that's missing the point.
Besides the unchangeable natural law, there is what Aquinas called the "Human Law", which consists of optional but not arbitrary provisions that are "reduced" from natural law. For example, if there is a highway where cars drive in opposite directions, they should obviously stay on opposite sides. However, which side to drive on isn't part of natural law, so in comes human law, where a custom or consensus will determine which side of the road cars should drive on.
The same goes for different conceptions of property rights. Instead of resolving conflicts through force, which is counter-productive and costly, it would be better for an arbitration system to emerge, to settle conflicts between different property metasystems.
wombatron:No, and that's missing the point. Besides the unchangeable natural law, there is what Aquinas called the "Human Law", which consists of optional but not arbitrary provisions that are "reduced" from natural law. For example, if there is a highway where cars drive in opposite directions, they should obviously stay on opposite sides. However, which side to drive on isn't part of natural law, so in comes human law, where a custom or consensus will determine which side of the road cars should drive on. The same goes for different conceptions of property rights. Instead of resolving conflicts through force, which is counter-productive and costly, it would be better for an arbitration system to emerge, to settle conflicts between different property metasystems.
I don't get that at all. First of all, the road is private. People can drive however the owner wants. It's none of Aquinas' business.
Are you seriously telling me that majority decision making is adequate rather than an objective definition of property? Why should a majority be able to legitimize an incoherent and irrational system? That's not justice. (And that's pretty much what we have today. The ignorant masses endorse and perpetuate the system).
Oh, I agree there will be conflicts. But a rational society that would accept a notion like the NAP, should also be able to develop a rational and objective theory on property. I'm not saying that I have that theory, but if we're going to take a vote on what is reality, then that defeats the entire purpose of striving for freedom.
Under such a system, there is nothing to stop people from having majority votes to determine what is and is not violence, coercion. We have objective definitions (I hope) for these property violations, how can they pre-exist a definition of property itself?
I do not particularly enjoy his take that systems of law as they pertain to property must be, or can only be, consequentialist based. In fact I would thoroughly disagree. I believe his arguments for land as such were thoroughly enough addressed by Long for example. Communitarian consensus, as we should all very damned well know, has dick to do with what is just.
"The coexistence of different systems of property in a panarchy would require an agreement by all parties to respect the rules established by majority consensus in each area"
^ this is repulsive to me. It seems to be setting up a regional monopoly on the provision of law. Hello statism, whats your name?
"The disputants could agree upon a wise arbiter, one without bias for or against either type of property system, to settle the issue. E.g. Wolf De Voon, who has made it clear that he thinks property amounts more or less to what the neighbors will allow. He would probably judge based on local custom and expectations of the parties involved"
^ I do not see why property rights are being seen as divorced from other rights. Carson seems to have this idea that property rights cannot be derived from other libertarian conceptions of rights. How would he or others feel about rights not pertaining to property treated in this manner? If region X inhabitants, being the bloodthirsty backwards savages they are, popularly declared that there is no right to a freedom of speech in region X... say with in taking the lords name in vain or some such... I dont give a rats ass what they expect from me wether it be a fine, imprisonment, death, 20 lashings... I equally do not care about some argument stating that I knew what to expect coming here and am just pulling a fast one on the oh so poor savages of region X. I do NOT care one damned bit about their looney local customs. Again communitarianism and customary foolishness are not a basis for justice. The same goes for property. There is all the difference in the world to me between what can be proven normatively true in the realm of interpersonal ethics and what is actually enforced.
I guess I am just an intolerant agorist according to these fellas.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
liberty student: What if there is a concensus that face slapping or kicking is not coercion? The problem with refusing to find an objective definition of property, is that we resort to majoritarian rule. Sometimes this forum makes me feel bad, because it seems people are far more concerned with populism and socialism than they are with justice and liberty.
What if there is a concensus that face slapping or kicking is not coercion?
I agree with this statement, mostly. I think confusing communitarianism or custom with what is really just, an objective theory of property as you said, is dangerous.
ThorsMitersaw:I do not particularly enjoy his take that systems of law as they pertain to property must be, or can only be, consequentialist based. In fact I would thoroughly disagree. I believe his arguments for land as such were thoroughly enough addressed by Long for example.
I'm actually leaning toward's Long's view in this matter, but that is actually more or less irrelevant, because people or communities can chosse to use Lockean, mutualist, Georgist, communist, or any other property rules with already-homesteaded property. Thus, it comes out to about the same thing.
In reply to some of the "communitatarian" comments, consensus and/or custom are nessecary in many cases; when natural law isn't specific, you can either fight over it or work it out, and the second option is always more productive. Common law, a kind of human law, is an example that most libertarians don't have a problem with. Human law can't contradict natural law, of course. It can only reduce it to apply to a certain situation.
The main point of my posting this was to show that it is possible to have a society where people have different ideas of property than you do.
wombatron: The main point of my posting this was to show that it is possible to have a society where people have different ideas of property than you do.
Sure. That's the current society. People have totally different ideas than I do, and they enforce it by majority rule. I'm not sure what the revelation here is.
I appreciate your posting it, but it's just nonsense, like BP's attempt in another thread to insist that people would just live in smaller communities with different ideas, so we don't bump into one another.
The facts of property, aren't malleable. Are you saying that if people didn't regard punching as violence, that beatings could be ok? Because they have a different idea?
It's like someone comes up with a theory, and it's flawed. They get so far with coherence, until the flaws come up. So they hastily paste "democracy" on it and hope no one notices. Or they mumble something about community isolation.
It's not even the majoritarianism that bothers me so much. It's the notion that everyone is allowed their own facts. Not ideas. Facts.
I believe my chair is mine by fact, and you think no one can own it by fact, so you can take it from under me, that's completely different. You've aggressed against me by my understanding of property. But you don't believe you have aggressed.
The point is, was there aggression, not "what does a majority think".
I'd like to read what Long thinks (if you can link me), because what Carson proposes is absolute rubbish. I think this makes the case, that in an attempt to reach out, he's lost what makes a libertarian a libertarian. The right to own property, starting with one's own self, and the fruit of his labours.
liberty student:I'd like to read what Long thinks (if you can link me), because what Carson proposes is absolute rubbish. I think this makes the case, that in an attempt to reach out, he's lost what makes a libertarian a libertarian. The right to own property, starting with one's own self, and the fruit of his labours.
Here. I agree with his critique, but it is, in this case, irrelevant to my point.
wombatron: Here. I agree with his critique, but it is, in this case, irrelevant to my point.
Thank you. This is excellent. While I vehemently disagree with some of the ideas, I definitely appreciate your humouring me.
liberty student:Thank you. This is excellent. While I vehemently disagree with some of the ideas, I definitely appreciate your humouring me.
No problem. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you 100% right off the bat
wombatron:No problem. Life would be boring if everyone agreed with you 100% right off the bat
Or eventually.
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