Political Theory

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

ThorsMitersaw — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:23:08 GMT

Donny with an A:

I mean, if someone built an apartment building in order to house tenants, and then lived somewhere else and collected rent, would that count as absentee ownership? It seems odd to think so, given that the construction of the apartment was clearly meant for the purpose of renting it out, and so the renting would be the "use" for which is was intended.

you might want to take a look at the quote from my thread about this subject.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:04:57 GMT

Well why not post some of it if it's useful? We can try to figure it out together.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

aestheticbend — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:14:24 GMT

Donny with an A:

Well it also just doesn't really accord with any view of the nature and justification of property rights that I'm familiar with. The Lockeans wouldn't like it, the utilitarians would demand evidence that such a way of arranging things would produce better outcomes, and the "property rights reflect a need to assign the right of way for using material objects so people can pursue their own goals and projects" crowd would probably be uncomfortable with all of the kinds of plans that would be effectively ruled out by such a regime. I'm just not seeing what kind of argument would justify this sort of idea.

I can send you something from a guy who has trying to convince me of the Mutualist theory of active use for awhile. But I agree, some of it leaves me scratching my head.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:47:00 GMT

Well it also just doesn't really accord with any view of the nature and justification of property rights that I'm familiar with. The Lockeans wouldn't like it, the utilitarians would demand evidence that such a way of arranging things would produce better outcomes, and the "property rights reflect a need to assign the right of way for using material objects so people can pursue their own goals and projects" crowd would probably be uncomfortable with all of the kinds of plans that would be effectively ruled out by such a regime. I'm just not seeing what kind of argument would justify this sort of idea.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:22:16 GMT

Yeah, that is how I view it as well. My experience is that they shift between the notion that you can only appropriate as much as you can yourself use, which is the weaker position, with active use being a prerequisite for continued ownership being the stronger position. The former can easily be harmonized with Lockean property rights. The latter cannot.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:16:14 GMT

The point I'm getting hung up on is that if I rented a shed and some tools, and organized a bunch of people to go plant and harvest the field according to plans that I provided them with, it seems like I would be the owner of the product after I paid the people I hired what I agreed to pay them. It's like how when you hire someone to build you a house, you get to keep the house after you've paid for it. It doesn't matter if I never actually pick up a hoe and help my employees with their work, just like it doesn't matter if I never pick up a hammer and help the construction people with their job. When I pay someone to perform a labor service for me, they get paid for their labor, and I get to keep what they produced with it. That's the way exchanges like that work. So I'm having a really difficult time with this idea of rejecting absentee ownership; what am I not understanding?

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:07:18 GMT

I agree, or at least I'd say one could, but if they failed to develop the fenced land in a short enough time, their claim would be null and void. They can, say mark out an area that they intend to develop. This is all practical stuff and thus will be decided upon by arbiters (i.e. local custom) in actuality, but I think it's reasonable to assume that much.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

aestheticbend — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:02:27 GMT

Yes is the answer to your second question, but I am not really a mutualist; I just have a more stringent view on appropriation than most libertarian anarchists. And yes, I agree on the second point, I was not saying that I agree with mutualists on property that has come under human ownership.

If you have capital, and hire a bunch of individuals to appropriate and homestead an area for a factory that is fine. But one by themselves cannot simply fence off a large area of the wilderness by themselves, and call it your property

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:57:36 GMT

But once something becomes someone's property, I do not think the active use constraint makes sense, so you can purchase more than you can actively use, but you cannot appropriate more than you actively use.

How does that work? Say I purchase a factory, will it then be mine? If so, why not just skip this unnecessary step and allow for the concept of "use" to involve hirelings or anyone else willing to act with me in bringing about a desired end?

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:51:36 GMT

But that rejection of hierarchy seems to implicitly reject comparative advantage as well, does it not? After all, that's the point of hiring people in the first place.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

aestheticbend — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:46:41 GMT

Donny with an A:

But again, what does "use" mean? If we understand "use" to include the active coordination of others to bring a part of the material world into line with one's goals and desires, then your factory example would be false. So what plausible conception of "use" would draw the line before that point? And why should we refrain from recognizing "use" of a variety which involves the coordination of the efforts of others, when that coordination clearly originates from an individual in relation to a part of the material world? Would the idea be that without the help of others, the coordination would be impossible, and so society ought to recognize all of the participants in a coordinated project as joint owners of the resulting product (or partial owners according to some other kind of ownership scheme)?

Yes, I would agree with you that my factory example requires the concept of use to simply deal with land and resource and not the coordination of people.

I think the distinction that is implied is that the relationship one has with the environment is autonomous conceptually, from the relationship one has with other individuals. I think that the idea, as misguided as it is, comes from the idea that the commons are common resource to the community of mankind, and as such any appropriation from the commons should not allow someone to elevate their position over others.

In essence there is a deep seeded egalitarianism present in the distrinction between the active coordination of other's efforts and the active use of material resources. The latter would not concievably privelege one member of a society over another, whereas the former concept, if integrated into the idea of active use, enables a hierarchy to form. Implict in the use-concept there seems to be a rejection of hierarchy.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:27:58 GMT

But again, what does "use" mean? If we understand "use" to include the active coordination of others to bring a part of the material world into line with one's goals and desires, then your factory example would be false. So what plausible conception of "use" would draw the line before that point? And why should we refrain from recognizing "use" of a variety which involves the coordination of the efforts of others, when that coordination clearly originates from an individual in relation to a part of the material world? Would the idea be that without the help of others, the coordination would be impossible, and so society ought to recognize all of the participants in a coordinated project as joint owners of the resulting product (or partial owners according to some other kind of ownership scheme)?

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

scineram — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:26:52 GMT

I guess they will have to say goodbye to big factories and industry.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

aestheticbend — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:14:31 GMT

Donny with an A:

I don't follow how more cooperative forms of ownership would follow from relaxing the terms of abandonment. Is the idea that an absentee owner would lose title to a productive venture, and the workers would come to be de facto joint owners as the result?

You are sort of right. The idea is that you can only own what you can concievably and do actively use. Thus, say I homestead a large piece of land for a factory, and claim it as my own; if I cannot concievably actively use this whole piece of land myself, than it really does not qualify as my property and as such can be homesteaded and used by others. They cannot take the part that I am actively using, but they can take the part that I have not kept up with active use. But, lets say that I buy a large piece of land and hire workers to grow crops for me, because I have not kept up active use myself of this piece of land, the land it not my legitimate property or possession, rather it becomes cooperatively owned by those who actively labour and work with it. Hence, cooperatives are necessary for the ownership of large pieces of land and factories, where one person cannot concievably keep in active use, what he has claimed or paid for.

I am not a mutualist per se in terms of rejection of rent and usury, but I do adhere to a theory of appropriation that requires that you can only appropriate from the commons what you are actively using. But once something becomes someone's property, I do not think the active use constraint makes sense, so you can purchase more than you can actively use, but you cannot appropriate more than you actively use.

Re: On "possession" and "occupancy" in Mutualist thought

Donny with an A — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:45:12 GMT

I don't follow how more cooperative forms of ownership would follow from relaxing the terms of abandonment. Is the idea that an absentee owner would lose title to a productive venture, and the workers would come to be de facto joint owners as the result?