Great takedown of the "common stock" problems. Unowned and commonly owned are two very different arrangements.
And the point about the "Indigenous people didn’t have property" fallacy is another important claim to counter. Record keeping and property aren't the same thing. A lack of formally written titles doesn't mean a lack of exercising the natural right of property. Birth certificates in the U.S. have been the norm for less than a century; would this mean births didn't happen before then?
Also, I have gotten challenges in the past about the Enclosures in Britain, as if the actions of rapacious landed gentry and the government somehow invalidate the concept of property. In fact, when the enclosures happened, the commoners were being robbed of customary property rights they had established for centuries. As you say, formal property titles are not the only kind of property.
Sure, the generous government will let everybody control their own 3 X 7 foot plot of land so when they crush you they have a place to bury you. Owning property is important but at what point do you truly own it? Never as long as there is a government of thieves ready to pounce on your land. If it has value to them, then it must be valuable, otherwise they wouldn't tax the crap out of it and regulate it to death.
I would suggest an easier way to reach this conclusion:
If people are living somewhere, and violent animals enter it, or poisonous plants begin growing there, they must act to remove these dangerous elements for the safety of everyone.
By definition, the group or individual that safeguards the land is the owner.
So all that is left is to ensure that whoever owns the land is intelligent, rational, and virtuous.
Everything else is idealistic nonsense.
But logic doesn't really matter to these people, if it did they'd never make such asinine claims, and they certainly wouldn't believe in utopian communism, which is nothing more than military dictatorship.
"utopian communism, which is nothing more than military dictatorship."
—Absolutely.
Yet generation after generation, we have to deal with people trying to make themselves feel better about themselves by supporting the "fairness" of communism.
What they actually want is freedom from responsibility.
In Marx' proposed system, everyone receives the same no matter their individual skill.
Those of inferior abilities see in this the opportunity to nullify competition, vilify those who recognise their failures and make skilled people support them.
Since about 80% of people believe they are inferior to the top 20% of people in each field, those who give up on improving themselves will realise that communism will make that difference irrelevant.
They are in the majority, so democratic elections will tend to favour communism whenever the average person feels depressed or lacks self confidence.
Another amusing fact is that Marx was upset about his mother refusing to give him an advance on his inheritance.
So his thesis about seizing the means of production through an uprising was a metaphor for his own desire to claim the inheritance money he believed was rightfully his.
It was about his unwillingness to work and his desire to play around with generational wealth.
I'm following your work closely, and very much appreciative of how you are systematically laying out your argument. I am both convinced by your argument that some form of property rights are necessary and desirable, and unconvinced by your framing of Locke's "earth given to us in common" argument needing to have a destructive meaning in application. His essential observation has fascinated me for some time: No one made the earth and its resources. Therefore in some way, land and resources are different in kind from things as Rothbard would hold that we mix our labor with and so create (tools, buildings, food, etc.) Of all those who have attempted to make sense of this conundrum, so far in my explorations, Henry George has come closest to devising a reasonable framework and response (I.e. some form of a Single Tax ONLY on the value of land and resources - (sort of a version of a gold standard) while all other taxes are ended) which absolutely excludes things like houses and other "made" improvements. His book "Progress and Poverty" was a magnum opus on the topic which people of extremely diverse perspectives have appreciated: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55308
Good thoughts. I did actually have a line that I removed (mostly just for brevity’s sake) that said something about Locke’s formulation being true in some poetic sense.
I will confess that I have not read George. But to the extent I understand Georgism/geolibertarianism, it seems to me to suffer from the same problems that all forms of involuntary governance do. It puts some small cadre of humans in charge of the rest of us, and makes their authority involuntary. It gives those people the ‘authority’ to extract things by force from other people. It gives those people the authority to decide how much you owe to the rest of humanity for your ‘crime’ of living somewhere and using the things of the Earth. Unless there is some aspect of Georgism which I am unaware, I just think market forces are a better way to do it. (Nothing is perfect, but better.) It is roughly the same reason why I am an ancap rather than a minarchist.
I highly recommend reading his book. I believe - given what I've read of your work - that you would appreciate "P and P" for its analytical rigor and fresh framings. I appreciate your concerns about dependence on a small cadre of humans in charge of the rest of us, however, I don't think George's ideas have to be enacted in that manner. I think that people could voluntarily enter into regional agreements which accept a particular objective formulation as a guiding principle. Read it and see what you think! I'd be so interested in your thoughts!
I have absolutely no problem with people forming their own polities in which they approach land and governance in that way. So long as it is not forced upon me 😁
Yes it would. Doing so would be a violation of the Lockean Proviso.
But also, it would never happen. Extreme hypotheticals are useful for discussion purposes, and they can help clarify ideas. But their utility only goes so far.
Because it would seem that, unless the majority of property was not pre-owned before birth, one would be dependent upon the owners of the property to give them a bit of it, usually in exchange for something else that someone has.
Sure. I was not born into land, so I had to buy some from someone. Which I did, for a good price, when I was in my 20s.
I mean, the universe does not owe me land. Since none of my ancestors had, or wanted to bequeath to me, any piece of land, I had to get my own. So I had to trade something desirable to an owner (in this case, money). So I did.
Without land, which is the ability to legally exist and survive independently of the goodwill and willingness of another individual to trade, then the universe could be said not to owe you life. And this, is because people who have existed before you, believed that their will (when they acquired land much more land than they could ever need) trumped your future ability to live freely.
True enough. Embracing ownership stabilizes society, as one will think about risk to property before taking action. If there is no ownership/nothing to lose, any action, including one that damages others and self, can be taken lightly.
Unfortunately yes. And it plays out, in a sense, on Indian reservations in the U.S., which have some bizarre usufruct regulations on land ownership. It's harder to care about one's property when one is not able to bequeath REAL ownership to one's children or to sell outright.
1.2 If they themselves, their free motion could be rightfully delayed by the property owner, correct? How can this be called anarchy. We are free to move and free to own property, to what degree are we ceding the right to free motion?
Question 2: how can a person gain land if the owners never sell?
Question 3: should all past ownership be respected? What about acquiring land by profiting off vaccine-market-manipulation? What about land protected by killer robots by right?
Property is not a *property* if it is protected as such, and as such there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so--as such there are plenty of valid critiques of how men's minds can manipulate the property of property. Regarding legality, properties should be relevant to the polity in question, and respected as such, but beyond this it would be non-anarchistic to say that property ownership is necessary and required. I am not saying anything bad about property ownership, but we have to own the property of property, not this hyperreal term that can mean anything.
Optioning here and now a vision for Capitalists: psychedellic Feng Shui cities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBU2rCaRrA). The beginnings would be low areas, where they do more farm or bureaucratic work. But because of the design, they can constantly increase the height. Those who can can start a party would attract those qualities. Those who could heal would do the same.
The benefit of a Feng Shui city is its modularity and time-investment, without the moral decrepitude of respecting state-capitalism, (and here's just one world's critique) that fear of non-survival forcing us into wage-slavery, the hot for titular goods a respite from the daily brutal belligerency towards freedom and compassion which we must endure. Who does not further the interest of the profit or the bureaucratic properties of the state policy is mocked..
No, I hope you (the anarcho-capitalists) who can afford to choose make certain that what is offered is true freedom with no strings attached. The best you can do is open a chain of Feng Shui cities...I think that got turned into 15 minute cities in the mistranslation through the greedy filters to experience cosmic intelligent architecture. We are always free out here, and the benefit of the cities approach to ownership is that nothing more than small areas and their roads need be protected, and those who live on the rift benefit from offering raw materials (Varna: Shudra--humanity and its naturally free foot). If the people (of the cities: Vaishya) choose to live in a well-run city (Kshatria) then the maintainers of the cities (anyone) are blending the right people. Understanding varna as a merited symbol of pride in the initial public offering is key to caste as a solution to property inheritance. Hobbe's sovereign protects these properties indeed, it must embody them! Therefore property as in material goods matters as an element of defence within a city. But beyond the walls of a humanely contained area of land, I see it hard to imagine how foxes could forgive you for fences, let alone true human people. We want to be free. We want the possibility to make our own generational cities. If they are unsavory and the protectors leave, then that city may flourish in its own way. What kind of consciousness is ownership though, without the properties inherited which protected it? It is kind of a tell that the real beneficiaries should be those who own the largest land rights which is why anarcho-capitalism needs the proviso that it's capitalist. What about the market needed capital investment to begin with? Not the goods and services: those are the capitalist investment! Therefore I would like us to reflect on the need to append this obsession with property and gain, could we be traumatized by successful invention? I think we are too used to getting it just so, and the over-philosophizing over property and ironic loss of properties or inherent value in high-capitalism is also due to greed and the many critique points of ownership intentions:
> Recognized property rights, and a legal system for their protection, are essential, as we will soon discuss. But these aren’t private title companies offering you a service for a reasonable fee. These are a small number of government ‘officials’ taxing you
It really reads like a pitch, but I think we both suffer from the same problem: we are talking to the very people we need to be critiquing. And yet, capitalism runs on good vibes and dream pipes, as well as a healthy degree of turning away and toward what one cares about most. Anarchism puts no demands on my psyche, and I'm happy to critique it anytime, always accessible to structures like capitalism...but I wonder if you engage in critique of capitalism?
Are any one things to blame? I think that lack of properties can, in the case of social welfare, fare much better for the people than overownership and the imaginary promise of you too getting a slice of the pie. I think you may be whispering the dream to the sleeper while the sun is rising.
That is kind of a lot—more things that I can possibly give proper answers to. So I will just take a few.
"Question 1: who owns the people on the land?"
—Vis-a-vis other humans, the answer is NO ONE. You own yourself. Full stop. If you want to add in a Divine component and say that God "owns" us all, that is fine, But here on Earth, you own you.
"1.2 If they themselves, their free motion could be rightfully delayed by the property owner, correct? How can this be called anarchy. We are free to move and free to own property, to what degree are we ceding the right to free motion?"
—The rights of movement and property are both legitimate human rights. You do not have a right to move across someone's property, though, and the way to solve that conflict is through the creation of roads, thoroughfares, and rights of way. And humans will always do that, whether with a government or without one. There will be conflicts that arise, but they will be limited, because people will not put up with the denial of movement. Problems in that regard will get solved one way or the other.
"Question 2: how can a person gain land if the owners never sell?"
—This is an extreme hypothetical. That scenario will never happen. People always sell. Plans change, people need the money, etc. Plus, here in the U.S., if just the land "owned" by the Bureau of Land management were released, there would be more than enough everyone who wants land. (Remember, some people want to live in cities, suburbs, etc. Not everyone wants rural land.)
"Question 3: should all past ownership be respected?"
—This is an extremely complicated question that will ultimately require a common law process. But there is extreme danger in trying to redress past grievances by harming current people, so we must be cautious.
"I wonder if you engage in critique of capitalism?"
See I think it's hard to find honor in theories when we have to hand wave away probable futures like the brutal occupation of land purchased by blood money and then protected by killer robots from the people we trained to be selfish by those who were the most bloodthirsty. First off, protecting that land, that legally purchased land, requires up keep for the killer robots, and without an economic structure to rebuild them, that upkeep requires slaves. Can't you see how a reasonable critique of ancap in a post-state world is the inordinate power of the capitalist vis-a-vis the lack of precedent for achieving his plans outside of state authority? There's a limit to how much pleasure can justify that much bloodthirst and we're collectively reaching it. Capitalists can still invest in a future where they're honored, but robots are for shop floors, not for nature--unless it's killing from above. Thus the material labor falls on human hands if the social breakdown doesn't deliver on the robot front.
All of this presumes that government is acting as a check upon "capitalism" (as you are defining it). I do not believe it is. Indeed, I believe it is enabling it, protecting it, engaged in a mutually beneficial/incestuous relationship with it, and giving it power over us. Power that would not exist in government's absence.
I think we're in agreement about the relationship. And that incestuous relationship takes two to tango. Thus where government steps off the train is when capital feels empowered to take over. That's not an arbitrary state about which we can make generalizations. It's a telos towards which both capitalists and state-bureaucracy are salivating to reach. Do you deny it? If not, why bother with generalizations except to keep up a light of hope before the means of capital enslavement are commensurate to the power-hunger on both sides of that incestuous relationship to fulfill itself?
I sometimes find it difficult to know for sure what you are getting at. Here is my bottom line:
Choice A: corporations exist. They have lots of money, but no legal coercive power.
Choice B: governments and corporations exist. Government has legal coercive power. Governments work with and protect corporations. Corporations can use the coercive power of government to impose their will upon us. (Making us take their vaccines and pay them via taxation and inflation, e.g.)
I will take A over B. Every time.
Since we do not know exactly what things will look like in the current modern context if governments were to disappear but corporations were to remain, there is much speculation at work here. But you will not convince me that corporations on their own are scarier than corporations AND government.
Note also that if corporations were to suddenly begin forcing people to use only their fiat currency as legal tender; conscripting people to fight in world-scale wars; and otherwise exercising coercive force upon people, then corporations have become governments. Whereupon my attitude toward them becomes the same as my attitude toward governments.
Okay I think I get you. So you're against the idea of government regardless of its manifestation, the idea being that people believe in it, since it empowers the coercion?
when it comes to the discussion walking alongside 'natural law' that is revealed in a lifetime as a living system of how life functions - one of the 'needs' in life (for which they transfer to all life - not just humans) is to have safety and protection - this is in part alongside property. We each have a right to our own 'place' and to live in safety amongst it. That you highlight that it isn't properties 'fault' that we have issues with ownership it is those who are doing the shady dealings. In the statement of all things should be free - pieces of it are true - but at the end of the day - not going to happen. I also resonate with your words around Indigenous land - and how they too had boundaries - in my own work I speak about those boundaries simply being very different then to now - yet they still had what belonged - a form of property - their land governed by the lore that was on that land that all followed. I see and read the issues here not as property themselves - but how it is being used for or against 'us' by the powers that be and their use of control and coercion through that ... to me this is the concern.
The powers, and their control and coercion, is the principle problem mankind has faced throughout history. Do you have thoughts for the best way to mitigate or escape that problem?
I mean. The answer is to take that power back. The issue with it is There’s as many answers to how that will happen as there are people willing to share their opinion. My knowing goes to our own untetheredness. That we so very quickly are thrust into this manipulated consent and coercive ways we don’t know otherwise. How do we realise (as oppose to awaken) to our truth of capacity to exist in governance as opposed to government. Are we even capable. We are so used to being able to blame we aren’t in the space of truly holding our own responsibility and therefore as per governance ‘steer’ ourselves. For me the solution first step is to what do we tether ourselves to in order to know our true existence true capacity and true self to be able to govern without requiring control.
Personal steps - are powerful - once we realise what that truly means. The shift of change we are all capable of determines every action we take from this moment on right - we are HERE because of every action belief and inaction we have taken .. some of which includes our acceptance of and enabling of the current systems - it may seem so simplistic and irrelevant to say - lets reclaim our power, with a hoorah and marching the streets - but this isnt what I am talking about - what I am speaking to is the threads within us that realise what our voices do - our votes do - our buying does - our knowledge does... AND when we have that we weave that back into governments and politics and places that can make the outer BIG external changes... I just dont see us being able to visualise our capacity or imagine our future without both these things happening at once. Of course people hear this and say it will take too long its too slow.. but its the ONLY way the kind of change we truly need will not just be achieved but be maintained. All else will simple have a fast rebound elastic band effect ...
Yes, that is exactly the sort of patient attitude we need in order to make the distributed nation work. It's not JUST about personal steps, but it does begin there. And as to the rest of the steps—there is no quick fix. I know we all want one, but we are going to have to dig in for the long haul, and for the sake of our children and their children…
"Share and share alike may sound good at first glance." But as Thomas Sowell has said: "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."
Yes, yes, and yes. I have no room for any who would take from those who have done and give to those who have not. If they want something, they should do what is required to get that thing. And, violence is not a legitimate way to take anything. Ever.
Also, there is no "fair share," so long as the Lockean Proviso is not being violated (or someone isn't doing anything dumb, like claiming ownership of as-yet-undiscovered planets).
well, now. quite often in these we have apples & oranges mixed in as though they are the same. while they are both classified as fruit which is enough distinction for some conversations, but not for those serious about this. some here have spent their entire lives living this to varying degrees...not just thinking it.
you are aware that every KNOWN bit of land, ocean, water, space, solar system, planet, stars, etc is claimed & owned, managed, bought & paid for, yes? not only by countries but also by wealthy individuals who own rights to profit off every possible venture imaginable. you know this, yes? good. now that that is established.
yes, i know you pointed out a few strips of land and areas of the sea which would all be disputable in this current scape.
the ideal for many of us is no govt, no authority beyond ourselves and our neighbors in cooperation. so registered property deeds or titles are out because there is no outside authority recognized to "register" with. which is why i use the word claim.
in reality of today, property title means almost nothing & is dependant on your location, recognized corresponding community zoning, regs, authority. so, in this current environment, that is where your choice lies. one must also acknowledge that those rules & regs can change in an instant and you can find yourself a criminal, life shattered, imprisoned or dead. there are probably hundreds of thousands of examples just in the last 30 years, from disasters, extraction industry, development.
right or wrong, this is what we have in the USA.
i will not get into the glorified tenant aspects of this typical "property ownership" which has been addressed to some degree already.
so in today's reality your idea of property ownership, the claim of use, free of constraint, discriminately, unhindered is valid, necessary yet always subject to limitation. the limitation is determined by the location you choose.
no one, in their right mind, would buy into a gated, policed community if they didnt want to live in a gated community. one must have an idea of the mindset of the area as well as water availability, rules & regs.
IF, we are working from here, this point, to there; our own part of the distributed nation with just a single or small set of guiding principles as foundation to build on...we must distinguish clearly in our thinking the end goal from where we are and how much authority or govt we want to end up living with in reality.
the greatest loss to us as peoples, human beings, was the commons. enclosures, loss of use of lands & resources to feed & shelter ourselves. the claiming of control of all land, water, air space, waterways, lakes, mineral, animal resources...by a king or country, company or lord or any entity as management for all of us, for payment or profit, leaves us indebted & impoverished.
your property ownership in full reality is merely a claim you hope will be respected. you own nothing but yourself, your clothes & your tools if not on credit lien.
IF we are going to create new, we must discard the old ways of doing. this includes our ways of thinking about old ways, human beings, learning & really seeing the real results time and time again. natural law is and can only be an offshoot of universal laws. natural law can only work if it is built upon, in harmony & alignment with the universal laws that govern this universe.
those laws are known and universally accepted. they are known by different names, studied by various aspect but are accepted across the board as real no matter how bendable.
so, no, Christopher, i won't stop saying it and in a certain time and place property ownership will be thought about correctly. that time & place is not yet here, but the conversation will & must continue as it never ceased. wealth & abundance are not the same, neither is prosperity. i want no govt. no authority that i must register with or pay to except to purchase what i choose & meets my needs.
an alliance would be lovely & highly desired as long as respect is demonstrated for differences and each is allowed to speak without dictate.
we have much to learn from each other and for new, that which hasn't been, for the many to be created and built, to become more than the dreams of many, we must be able to share the many for the many to see and be aware of the many options without shoulds, don'ts, shame.
i had hope this was that place & it definitely is a beginning to bring together more instead of a million websites to places i wouldnt want to live. this work is important if we can get past ourselves and look for the value others experiences bring to our table for us to pick & choose from. im not editing so hopefully this is received as intended & i covered my main points clearly.
I do not think we really disagree all that much here.
One of the many things Locke got right is his Proviso—that people can homestead land, provided that "there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use." That, plus his labor-mixing theory, invalidate all claims upon space, the oceans, exoplanets, etc. by countries, international agencies, and rich people. They can claim it until they are blue in the face, but they are wrong. (Indeed, I have been planning to write about this.) That land is out there for us to homestead. Claims by states or anyone else of absentee ownership of them are fraudulent.
Also, the Enclosures movement was an evil collusion between government and rich people that also violated natural property rights. When people have established a claim to a territorial range, as commoners had for centuries before the Enclosures, it was a violation to take that land. The commoners were the ones who had had their property rights taken there.
As far as property titles (e.g., establishing that I bought my acres fair and square from Bob Smith), those do not require a government. Market solutions (private title companies, etc.) will do just fine there.
So are we mostly on the same page in these regards?
while I agree that many claims are not valid, fictional or even delusional they are here, in force and bought into by many. which is why it must be accounted for.
i ultimately do not want any authority, including private title companies to impose ANY, none, zero authority over me. no authority to set fees, to set fines, regulations, standards on my land availability, use of, etc.
if we are going to establish new governance structure of any kind then i would prefer that all existing structure be abolished as ALL of it has been established on corrupted principles & thinking.
now, that said, i realize that to do that is where the distributed nation & principle is so important as each "polity" or community will establish their own way.
i have no interest in dealing with mercenaries for hire or any entity set as "authority" that is not a part of or party to the community and subject to the highest bidder. nope
we are still here trying to get to some there. with multinationals, supply chains, comfort zones, structures of all kinds whether only thought/belief, necessary or not. erroneous, wrong, right, i agree the time is now & many are underway. it all begins here, where we are, sharing but most importantly gathering, pooling info. creating true alliance along with "disagreeing to agree"! 😂👏😂. i loved that.
we must separate apples & oranges, personal wants from basic principle.
i like KYFHO and i add MYOFB as my principle & code of living.
—Yes. This is going to be a problem once we start exploring space in earnest. Hopefully things will have changed by then, but if not, we need to tell states—SPACE ISN'T YOURS.
"including private title companies to impose ANY, none, zero authority over me"
—I do not think there is any market-anarchic vision of a private title company that would impose anything like that. It would just be a neutral third-party service that records things like land sales and title deeds. This will be useful for all concerned in any land transaction. And to deal with any dispute (boundaries, etc.).
"i would prefer that all existing structure be abolished"
—It would be better if it all went away. But I cannot imagine us having the power to abolish them, and I am not sure we would want that power even if we could. I am hopping that a combination of A) opting out/parallel structures, B) negotiation, and C) organic change over time will get us where we need to be. Not sure how we would abolish anything, short of bloody revolution, which obviously has a bunch of problems.
Plus, some people might want the existing system(s), and if I were able to secede from them peacefully, I certainly would not attempt to force anyone to come with me. Just let us go!
"it all begins here"…"we must separate apples & oranges, personal wants from basic principle."…"i like KYFHO and i add MYOFB as my principle & code of living."
yes, exactly, you get what i am saying & usually say it better. that is a gift.
"It would just be a neutral third-party service that records things like land sales and title deeds."
i still see this as an overseer position, with authority & accountable, answerable to someone. it would employ people, be closed to public access & scrutiny by "keepers" & shepherds of documents who I have no doubt that at some point, some one could/would be able to get to thwart, tamper, forge, "forget" a signature or render a fraudulant...one of the universal laws...said my way as human nature. human beings weakness must be accounted for & safeguarded against as that helps strengthen us all.
each community can design their way & outside entities must respect that way even if different...AND that is another day.
Though it was for a different project, I did start to envision some systems that could potentially avoid or mitigate the problems you describe. See especially Articles II, III, and IV https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
So do I!! All we can do is try and pray... we have tried all these methods .. happens when history is being distorted, re- written and education has totally failed.
Or was made to fail ...
Going back to things that didn't work the first time around .. the cycle.. i'm seeing a toilet flushing in my mind ... around and around they go... again and again.
Great takedown of the "common stock" problems. Unowned and commonly owned are two very different arrangements.
And the point about the "Indigenous people didn’t have property" fallacy is another important claim to counter. Record keeping and property aren't the same thing. A lack of formally written titles doesn't mean a lack of exercising the natural right of property. Birth certificates in the U.S. have been the norm for less than a century; would this mean births didn't happen before then?
Right on.
Also, I have gotten challenges in the past about the Enclosures in Britain, as if the actions of rapacious landed gentry and the government somehow invalidate the concept of property. In fact, when the enclosures happened, the commoners were being robbed of customary property rights they had established for centuries. As you say, formal property titles are not the only kind of property.
Sure, the generous government will let everybody control their own 3 X 7 foot plot of land so when they crush you they have a place to bury you. Owning property is important but at what point do you truly own it? Never as long as there is a government of thieves ready to pounce on your land. If it has value to them, then it must be valuable, otherwise they wouldn't tax the crap out of it and regulate it to death.
I would suggest an easier way to reach this conclusion:
If people are living somewhere, and violent animals enter it, or poisonous plants begin growing there, they must act to remove these dangerous elements for the safety of everyone.
By definition, the group or individual that safeguards the land is the owner.
So all that is left is to ensure that whoever owns the land is intelligent, rational, and virtuous.
Everything else is idealistic nonsense.
But logic doesn't really matter to these people, if it did they'd never make such asinine claims, and they certainly wouldn't believe in utopian communism, which is nothing more than military dictatorship.
"utopian communism, which is nothing more than military dictatorship."
—Absolutely.
Yet generation after generation, we have to deal with people trying to make themselves feel better about themselves by supporting the "fairness" of communism.
Indeed.
What they actually want is freedom from responsibility.
In Marx' proposed system, everyone receives the same no matter their individual skill.
Those of inferior abilities see in this the opportunity to nullify competition, vilify those who recognise their failures and make skilled people support them.
Since about 80% of people believe they are inferior to the top 20% of people in each field, those who give up on improving themselves will realise that communism will make that difference irrelevant.
They are in the majority, so democratic elections will tend to favour communism whenever the average person feels depressed or lacks self confidence.
Another amusing fact is that Marx was upset about his mother refusing to give him an advance on his inheritance.
So his thesis about seizing the means of production through an uprising was a metaphor for his own desire to claim the inheritance money he believed was rightfully his.
It was about his unwillingness to work and his desire to play around with generational wealth.
Well and rightly said in every regard.
Did you also know about his poems to Satan?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/murray-n-rothbard/marx-loved-satan/
No but I suspected as much.
Him and his motley crew of degenerates were assholes to the very end.
It only makes sense that they worship satan as well.
💯
He said that he would "howl curses upon mankind," and he did.
I'm following your work closely, and very much appreciative of how you are systematically laying out your argument. I am both convinced by your argument that some form of property rights are necessary and desirable, and unconvinced by your framing of Locke's "earth given to us in common" argument needing to have a destructive meaning in application. His essential observation has fascinated me for some time: No one made the earth and its resources. Therefore in some way, land and resources are different in kind from things as Rothbard would hold that we mix our labor with and so create (tools, buildings, food, etc.) Of all those who have attempted to make sense of this conundrum, so far in my explorations, Henry George has come closest to devising a reasonable framework and response (I.e. some form of a Single Tax ONLY on the value of land and resources - (sort of a version of a gold standard) while all other taxes are ended) which absolutely excludes things like houses and other "made" improvements. His book "Progress and Poverty" was a magnum opus on the topic which people of extremely diverse perspectives have appreciated: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55308
Good thoughts. I did actually have a line that I removed (mostly just for brevity’s sake) that said something about Locke’s formulation being true in some poetic sense.
I will confess that I have not read George. But to the extent I understand Georgism/geolibertarianism, it seems to me to suffer from the same problems that all forms of involuntary governance do. It puts some small cadre of humans in charge of the rest of us, and makes their authority involuntary. It gives those people the ‘authority’ to extract things by force from other people. It gives those people the authority to decide how much you owe to the rest of humanity for your ‘crime’ of living somewhere and using the things of the Earth. Unless there is some aspect of Georgism which I am unaware, I just think market forces are a better way to do it. (Nothing is perfect, but better.) It is roughly the same reason why I am an ancap rather than a minarchist.
I highly recommend reading his book. I believe - given what I've read of your work - that you would appreciate "P and P" for its analytical rigor and fresh framings. I appreciate your concerns about dependence on a small cadre of humans in charge of the rest of us, however, I don't think George's ideas have to be enacted in that manner. I think that people could voluntarily enter into regional agreements which accept a particular objective formulation as a guiding principle. Read it and see what you think! I'd be so interested in your thoughts!
I hope to get to read it at some point!
I have absolutely no problem with people forming their own polities in which they approach land and governance in that way. So long as it is not forced upon me 😁
It would be pretty anti-propertarian if I were to accrue all of the property so you could not have any.
Yes it would. Doing so would be a violation of the Lockean Proviso.
But also, it would never happen. Extreme hypotheticals are useful for discussion purposes, and they can help clarify ideas. But their utility only goes so far.
Can you say that, when you were born, there was no unclaimed property in existence for you to snatch up?
There is still a small amount of it now, so I assume there was some then as well. Why do you ask?
Because it would seem that, unless the majority of property was not pre-owned before birth, one would be dependent upon the owners of the property to give them a bit of it, usually in exchange for something else that someone has.
Sure. I was not born into land, so I had to buy some from someone. Which I did, for a good price, when I was in my 20s.
I mean, the universe does not owe me land. Since none of my ancestors had, or wanted to bequeath to me, any piece of land, I had to get my own. So I had to trade something desirable to an owner (in this case, money). So I did.
Without land, which is the ability to legally exist and survive independently of the goodwill and willingness of another individual to trade, then the universe could be said not to owe you life. And this, is because people who have existed before you, believed that their will (when they acquired land much more land than they could ever need) trumped your future ability to live freely.
True enough. Embracing ownership stabilizes society, as one will think about risk to property before taking action. If there is no ownership/nothing to lose, any action, including one that damages others and self, can be taken lightly.
Unfortunately yes. And it plays out, in a sense, on Indian reservations in the U.S., which have some bizarre usufruct regulations on land ownership. It's harder to care about one's property when one is not able to bequeath REAL ownership to one's children or to sell outright.
Question 1: who owns the people on the land?
1.2 If they themselves, their free motion could be rightfully delayed by the property owner, correct? How can this be called anarchy. We are free to move and free to own property, to what degree are we ceding the right to free motion?
Question 2: how can a person gain land if the owners never sell?
Question 3: should all past ownership be respected? What about acquiring land by profiting off vaccine-market-manipulation? What about land protected by killer robots by right?
Property is not a *property* if it is protected as such, and as such there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so--as such there are plenty of valid critiques of how men's minds can manipulate the property of property. Regarding legality, properties should be relevant to the polity in question, and respected as such, but beyond this it would be non-anarchistic to say that property ownership is necessary and required. I am not saying anything bad about property ownership, but we have to own the property of property, not this hyperreal term that can mean anything.
Optioning here and now a vision for Capitalists: psychedellic Feng Shui cities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBU2rCaRrA). The beginnings would be low areas, where they do more farm or bureaucratic work. But because of the design, they can constantly increase the height. Those who can can start a party would attract those qualities. Those who could heal would do the same.
The benefit of a Feng Shui city is its modularity and time-investment, without the moral decrepitude of respecting state-capitalism, (and here's just one world's critique) that fear of non-survival forcing us into wage-slavery, the hot for titular goods a respite from the daily brutal belligerency towards freedom and compassion which we must endure. Who does not further the interest of the profit or the bureaucratic properties of the state policy is mocked..
No, I hope you (the anarcho-capitalists) who can afford to choose make certain that what is offered is true freedom with no strings attached. The best you can do is open a chain of Feng Shui cities...I think that got turned into 15 minute cities in the mistranslation through the greedy filters to experience cosmic intelligent architecture. We are always free out here, and the benefit of the cities approach to ownership is that nothing more than small areas and their roads need be protected, and those who live on the rift benefit from offering raw materials (Varna: Shudra--humanity and its naturally free foot). If the people (of the cities: Vaishya) choose to live in a well-run city (Kshatria) then the maintainers of the cities (anyone) are blending the right people. Understanding varna as a merited symbol of pride in the initial public offering is key to caste as a solution to property inheritance. Hobbe's sovereign protects these properties indeed, it must embody them! Therefore property as in material goods matters as an element of defence within a city. But beyond the walls of a humanely contained area of land, I see it hard to imagine how foxes could forgive you for fences, let alone true human people. We want to be free. We want the possibility to make our own generational cities. If they are unsavory and the protectors leave, then that city may flourish in its own way. What kind of consciousness is ownership though, without the properties inherited which protected it? It is kind of a tell that the real beneficiaries should be those who own the largest land rights which is why anarcho-capitalism needs the proviso that it's capitalist. What about the market needed capital investment to begin with? Not the goods and services: those are the capitalist investment! Therefore I would like us to reflect on the need to append this obsession with property and gain, could we be traumatized by successful invention? I think we are too used to getting it just so, and the over-philosophizing over property and ironic loss of properties or inherent value in high-capitalism is also due to greed and the many critique points of ownership intentions:
> Recognized property rights, and a legal system for their protection, are essential, as we will soon discuss. But these aren’t private title companies offering you a service for a reasonable fee. These are a small number of government ‘officials’ taxing you
It really reads like a pitch, but I think we both suffer from the same problem: we are talking to the very people we need to be critiquing. And yet, capitalism runs on good vibes and dream pipes, as well as a healthy degree of turning away and toward what one cares about most. Anarchism puts no demands on my psyche, and I'm happy to critique it anytime, always accessible to structures like capitalism...but I wonder if you engage in critique of capitalism?
Are any one things to blame? I think that lack of properties can, in the case of social welfare, fare much better for the people than overownership and the imaginary promise of you too getting a slice of the pie. I think you may be whispering the dream to the sleeper while the sun is rising.
That is kind of a lot—more things that I can possibly give proper answers to. So I will just take a few.
"Question 1: who owns the people on the land?"
—Vis-a-vis other humans, the answer is NO ONE. You own yourself. Full stop. If you want to add in a Divine component and say that God "owns" us all, that is fine, But here on Earth, you own you.
"1.2 If they themselves, their free motion could be rightfully delayed by the property owner, correct? How can this be called anarchy. We are free to move and free to own property, to what degree are we ceding the right to free motion?"
—The rights of movement and property are both legitimate human rights. You do not have a right to move across someone's property, though, and the way to solve that conflict is through the creation of roads, thoroughfares, and rights of way. And humans will always do that, whether with a government or without one. There will be conflicts that arise, but they will be limited, because people will not put up with the denial of movement. Problems in that regard will get solved one way or the other.
"Question 2: how can a person gain land if the owners never sell?"
—This is an extreme hypothetical. That scenario will never happen. People always sell. Plans change, people need the money, etc. Plus, here in the U.S., if just the land "owned" by the Bureau of Land management were released, there would be more than enough everyone who wants land. (Remember, some people want to live in cities, suburbs, etc. Not everyone wants rural land.)
"Question 3: should all past ownership be respected?"
—This is an extremely complicated question that will ultimately require a common law process. But there is extreme danger in trying to redress past grievances by harming current people, so we must be cautious.
"I wonder if you engage in critique of capitalism?"
—Depends on how one defines "capitalism."
See I think it's hard to find honor in theories when we have to hand wave away probable futures like the brutal occupation of land purchased by blood money and then protected by killer robots from the people we trained to be selfish by those who were the most bloodthirsty. First off, protecting that land, that legally purchased land, requires up keep for the killer robots, and without an economic structure to rebuild them, that upkeep requires slaves. Can't you see how a reasonable critique of ancap in a post-state world is the inordinate power of the capitalist vis-a-vis the lack of precedent for achieving his plans outside of state authority? There's a limit to how much pleasure can justify that much bloodthirst and we're collectively reaching it. Capitalists can still invest in a future where they're honored, but robots are for shop floors, not for nature--unless it's killing from above. Thus the material labor falls on human hands if the social breakdown doesn't deliver on the robot front.
All of this presumes that government is acting as a check upon "capitalism" (as you are defining it). I do not believe it is. Indeed, I believe it is enabling it, protecting it, engaged in a mutually beneficial/incestuous relationship with it, and giving it power over us. Power that would not exist in government's absence.
I think we're in agreement about the relationship. And that incestuous relationship takes two to tango. Thus where government steps off the train is when capital feels empowered to take over. That's not an arbitrary state about which we can make generalizations. It's a telos towards which both capitalists and state-bureaucracy are salivating to reach. Do you deny it? If not, why bother with generalizations except to keep up a light of hope before the means of capital enslavement are commensurate to the power-hunger on both sides of that incestuous relationship to fulfill itself?
I sometimes find it difficult to know for sure what you are getting at. Here is my bottom line:
Choice A: corporations exist. They have lots of money, but no legal coercive power.
Choice B: governments and corporations exist. Government has legal coercive power. Governments work with and protect corporations. Corporations can use the coercive power of government to impose their will upon us. (Making us take their vaccines and pay them via taxation and inflation, e.g.)
I will take A over B. Every time.
Since we do not know exactly what things will look like in the current modern context if governments were to disappear but corporations were to remain, there is much speculation at work here. But you will not convince me that corporations on their own are scarier than corporations AND government.
Note also that if corporations were to suddenly begin forcing people to use only their fiat currency as legal tender; conscripting people to fight in world-scale wars; and otherwise exercising coercive force upon people, then corporations have become governments. Whereupon my attitude toward them becomes the same as my attitude toward governments.
Okay I think I get you. So you're against the idea of government regardless of its manifestation, the idea being that people believe in it, since it empowers the coercion?
Without property rights - beginning with self ownership - you have no rights.
💯🔥
when it comes to the discussion walking alongside 'natural law' that is revealed in a lifetime as a living system of how life functions - one of the 'needs' in life (for which they transfer to all life - not just humans) is to have safety and protection - this is in part alongside property. We each have a right to our own 'place' and to live in safety amongst it. That you highlight that it isn't properties 'fault' that we have issues with ownership it is those who are doing the shady dealings. In the statement of all things should be free - pieces of it are true - but at the end of the day - not going to happen. I also resonate with your words around Indigenous land - and how they too had boundaries - in my own work I speak about those boundaries simply being very different then to now - yet they still had what belonged - a form of property - their land governed by the lore that was on that land that all followed. I see and read the issues here not as property themselves - but how it is being used for or against 'us' by the powers that be and their use of control and coercion through that ... to me this is the concern.
The powers, and their control and coercion, is the principle problem mankind has faced throughout history. Do you have thoughts for the best way to mitigate or escape that problem?
I mean. The answer is to take that power back. The issue with it is There’s as many answers to how that will happen as there are people willing to share their opinion. My knowing goes to our own untetheredness. That we so very quickly are thrust into this manipulated consent and coercive ways we don’t know otherwise. How do we realise (as oppose to awaken) to our truth of capacity to exist in governance as opposed to government. Are we even capable. We are so used to being able to blame we aren’t in the space of truly holding our own responsibility and therefore as per governance ‘steer’ ourselves. For me the solution first step is to what do we tether ourselves to in order to know our true existence true capacity and true self to be able to govern without requiring control.
Yeah, the personal steps are definitely important. Is that mostly what you mean by "taking power back"?
Personal steps - are powerful - once we realise what that truly means. The shift of change we are all capable of determines every action we take from this moment on right - we are HERE because of every action belief and inaction we have taken .. some of which includes our acceptance of and enabling of the current systems - it may seem so simplistic and irrelevant to say - lets reclaim our power, with a hoorah and marching the streets - but this isnt what I am talking about - what I am speaking to is the threads within us that realise what our voices do - our votes do - our buying does - our knowledge does... AND when we have that we weave that back into governments and politics and places that can make the outer BIG external changes... I just dont see us being able to visualise our capacity or imagine our future without both these things happening at once. Of course people hear this and say it will take too long its too slow.. but its the ONLY way the kind of change we truly need will not just be achieved but be maintained. All else will simple have a fast rebound elastic band effect ...
Yes, that is exactly the sort of patient attitude we need in order to make the distributed nation work. It's not JUST about personal steps, but it does begin there. And as to the rest of the steps—there is no quick fix. I know we all want one, but we are going to have to dig in for the long haul, and for the sake of our children and their children…
With You 100%! I wrote this piece for the anarcho-abundancist Society Of Ethical Sovereigns stance:
Own What You Use (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/own-what-you-use
More:
The Third Option: Anarcho-Abundancism (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-third-option-anarcho-abundancism
"Share and share alike may sound good at first glance." But as Thomas Sowell has said: "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."
Yes, because people are obsessed with their own sense of "virtue." "Drunk on virtue," as Rousseau described himself.
Very clear, and clear-cut.
In spite of the length, this was an easy one to write. Property-rights stuff is permanently emblazoned on my brain and soul.
Yes, yes, and yes. I have no room for any who would take from those who have done and give to those who have not. If they want something, they should do what is required to get that thing. And, violence is not a legitimate way to take anything. Ever.
Right on.
Also, there is no "fair share," so long as the Lockean Proviso is not being violated (or someone isn't doing anything dumb, like claiming ownership of as-yet-undiscovered planets).
well, now. quite often in these we have apples & oranges mixed in as though they are the same. while they are both classified as fruit which is enough distinction for some conversations, but not for those serious about this. some here have spent their entire lives living this to varying degrees...not just thinking it.
you are aware that every KNOWN bit of land, ocean, water, space, solar system, planet, stars, etc is claimed & owned, managed, bought & paid for, yes? not only by countries but also by wealthy individuals who own rights to profit off every possible venture imaginable. you know this, yes? good. now that that is established.
yes, i know you pointed out a few strips of land and areas of the sea which would all be disputable in this current scape.
the ideal for many of us is no govt, no authority beyond ourselves and our neighbors in cooperation. so registered property deeds or titles are out because there is no outside authority recognized to "register" with. which is why i use the word claim.
in reality of today, property title means almost nothing & is dependant on your location, recognized corresponding community zoning, regs, authority. so, in this current environment, that is where your choice lies. one must also acknowledge that those rules & regs can change in an instant and you can find yourself a criminal, life shattered, imprisoned or dead. there are probably hundreds of thousands of examples just in the last 30 years, from disasters, extraction industry, development.
right or wrong, this is what we have in the USA.
i will not get into the glorified tenant aspects of this typical "property ownership" which has been addressed to some degree already.
so in today's reality your idea of property ownership, the claim of use, free of constraint, discriminately, unhindered is valid, necessary yet always subject to limitation. the limitation is determined by the location you choose.
no one, in their right mind, would buy into a gated, policed community if they didnt want to live in a gated community. one must have an idea of the mindset of the area as well as water availability, rules & regs.
IF, we are working from here, this point, to there; our own part of the distributed nation with just a single or small set of guiding principles as foundation to build on...we must distinguish clearly in our thinking the end goal from where we are and how much authority or govt we want to end up living with in reality.
the greatest loss to us as peoples, human beings, was the commons. enclosures, loss of use of lands & resources to feed & shelter ourselves. the claiming of control of all land, water, air space, waterways, lakes, mineral, animal resources...by a king or country, company or lord or any entity as management for all of us, for payment or profit, leaves us indebted & impoverished.
your property ownership in full reality is merely a claim you hope will be respected. you own nothing but yourself, your clothes & your tools if not on credit lien.
IF we are going to create new, we must discard the old ways of doing. this includes our ways of thinking about old ways, human beings, learning & really seeing the real results time and time again. natural law is and can only be an offshoot of universal laws. natural law can only work if it is built upon, in harmony & alignment with the universal laws that govern this universe.
those laws are known and universally accepted. they are known by different names, studied by various aspect but are accepted across the board as real no matter how bendable.
so, no, Christopher, i won't stop saying it and in a certain time and place property ownership will be thought about correctly. that time & place is not yet here, but the conversation will & must continue as it never ceased. wealth & abundance are not the same, neither is prosperity. i want no govt. no authority that i must register with or pay to except to purchase what i choose & meets my needs.
an alliance would be lovely & highly desired as long as respect is demonstrated for differences and each is allowed to speak without dictate.
we have much to learn from each other and for new, that which hasn't been, for the many to be created and built, to become more than the dreams of many, we must be able to share the many for the many to see and be aware of the many options without shoulds, don'ts, shame.
i had hope this was that place & it definitely is a beginning to bring together more instead of a million websites to places i wouldnt want to live. this work is important if we can get past ourselves and look for the value others experiences bring to our table for us to pick & choose from. im not editing so hopefully this is received as intended & i covered my main points clearly.
I do not think we really disagree all that much here.
One of the many things Locke got right is his Proviso—that people can homestead land, provided that "there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use." That, plus his labor-mixing theory, invalidate all claims upon space, the oceans, exoplanets, etc. by countries, international agencies, and rich people. They can claim it until they are blue in the face, but they are wrong. (Indeed, I have been planning to write about this.) That land is out there for us to homestead. Claims by states or anyone else of absentee ownership of them are fraudulent.
Also, the Enclosures movement was an evil collusion between government and rich people that also violated natural property rights. When people have established a claim to a territorial range, as commoners had for centuries before the Enclosures, it was a violation to take that land. The commoners were the ones who had had their property rights taken there.
As far as property titles (e.g., establishing that I bought my acres fair and square from Bob Smith), those do not require a government. Market solutions (private title companies, etc.) will do just fine there.
So are we mostly on the same page in these regards?
lol. we almost always are on the same page....
while I agree that many claims are not valid, fictional or even delusional they are here, in force and bought into by many. which is why it must be accounted for.
i ultimately do not want any authority, including private title companies to impose ANY, none, zero authority over me. no authority to set fees, to set fines, regulations, standards on my land availability, use of, etc.
if we are going to establish new governance structure of any kind then i would prefer that all existing structure be abolished as ALL of it has been established on corrupted principles & thinking.
now, that said, i realize that to do that is where the distributed nation & principle is so important as each "polity" or community will establish their own way.
i have no interest in dealing with mercenaries for hire or any entity set as "authority" that is not a part of or party to the community and subject to the highest bidder. nope
we are still here trying to get to some there. with multinationals, supply chains, comfort zones, structures of all kinds whether only thought/belief, necessary or not. erroneous, wrong, right, i agree the time is now & many are underway. it all begins here, where we are, sharing but most importantly gathering, pooling info. creating true alliance along with "disagreeing to agree"! 😂👏😂. i loved that.
we must separate apples & oranges, personal wants from basic principle.
i like KYFHO and i add MYOFB as my principle & code of living.
"which is why it must be accounted for."
—Yes. This is going to be a problem once we start exploring space in earnest. Hopefully things will have changed by then, but if not, we need to tell states—SPACE ISN'T YOURS.
"including private title companies to impose ANY, none, zero authority over me"
—I do not think there is any market-anarchic vision of a private title company that would impose anything like that. It would just be a neutral third-party service that records things like land sales and title deeds. This will be useful for all concerned in any land transaction. And to deal with any dispute (boundaries, etc.).
"i would prefer that all existing structure be abolished"
—It would be better if it all went away. But I cannot imagine us having the power to abolish them, and I am not sure we would want that power even if we could. I am hopping that a combination of A) opting out/parallel structures, B) negotiation, and C) organic change over time will get us where we need to be. Not sure how we would abolish anything, short of bloody revolution, which obviously has a bunch of problems.
Plus, some people might want the existing system(s), and if I were able to secede from them peacefully, I certainly would not attempt to force anyone to come with me. Just let us go!
"it all begins here"…"we must separate apples & oranges, personal wants from basic principle."…"i like KYFHO and i add MYOFB as my principle & code of living."
—Right on!
yes, exactly, you get what i am saying & usually say it better. that is a gift.
"It would just be a neutral third-party service that records things like land sales and title deeds."
i still see this as an overseer position, with authority & accountable, answerable to someone. it would employ people, be closed to public access & scrutiny by "keepers" & shepherds of documents who I have no doubt that at some point, some one could/would be able to get to thwart, tamper, forge, "forget" a signature or render a fraudulant...one of the universal laws...said my way as human nature. human beings weakness must be accounted for & safeguarded against as that helps strengthen us all.
each community can design their way & outside entities must respect that way even if different...AND that is another day.
Though it was for a different project, I did start to envision some systems that could potentially avoid or mitigate the problems you describe. See especially Articles II, III, and IV https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
#7. vii. covers it on first read!
ty for the link again!
As always!! 👏👏👏🙏
🔥
I wonder how many this will scare off. Some people are very committed to their anti-propertarian stance.
So do I!! All we can do is try and pray... we have tried all these methods .. happens when history is being distorted, re- written and education has totally failed.
Or was made to fail ...
Going back to things that didn't work the first time around .. the cycle.. i'm seeing a toilet flushing in my mind ... around and around they go... again and again.
.. here I'm again preaching to the quire!! Heehee
🙏
🔥😁
😁🙏
I agree with you fully Christopher. You brought up and exposed many aspects I had not considered enough.
So True and if only the Psychotics in charge honored it:
"Bottom line: Everything comes down to consent…"
Right on. 🔥