Benjamin Tucker: "Might makes Right over land"

[IcarusAngel]

"In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still." -Benjamin Tucker, market socialist (From anarchist FAQ.)

" It has been said of the world's history hitherto that might makes right. It is for us and for our time to reverse the maxim, and to say that right makes might. " --Abraham Lincoln

This position, while it could be considered anarchist as this likely happened pre-civilization (pre-anarchist) is the chaotic position people refer to when they criticize anarchism, where people roam around and rule over one another by brute force, which is opposite of 'social anarchism,' where it is assumed people cooperate.

Still, I think it outlines the type of land ownership claims that exist: capitalist property (where people own land by first come, first serve, and also by trading their labor for the right to live on said land), 'might makes right,' and also usage based rights. Usage based rights means that you are a part of the community and your possessions are based on your needs and contributions.

I'm interested in finding communist literature on this, like how workers would actually obtain the right to use land over another set of workers. What if it could be shown that a community is wholly inefficient and wasting resources? Should it be replaced? etc.

[Robert]

capitalist property (where people own land by first come, first serve, and also by trading their labor for the right to live on said land)Two things: first, I remember complaining to a friend one time about the maintenance and taxes and interest payments and energy and attention required of some property I "owned", and me wondering aloud whether it really was an advantage to buy instead of rent. He didn't hesitate before observing: "you don't 'own' anything."

I'm not sure how much of that was christian philosophy and how much base financial calculation, but I am more and more convinced he was on to something. The responsibility and liability that comes with "ownership" can be a pain in the ass and drain you of energy and money. Yeah, I know, if you're rich enough -- most are not, I am not -- you can pay a manager to worry about your "stuff."

Second, you appear to be ignoring completely the possibility of wage slaves, which is my and my family's background, actually becoming owners instead of renters. Not that I don't wonder whether they are often making a mistake, per first two paragraphs.

But it's for themto decide whether they want to collectivize on the one hand, versus the opportunity to trade their labor, not only for immediate shelter and food, but also for surplus wages and the opportunity to "own" their own little corner of the world, be it ever so brief and illusory.

[IcarusAngel]

Your friend makes a good point. No one truly owns anything. My concern is how people in society come to acquire power over others, and in capitalism while it's supposedly assumed people 'worked' for their land it ultimately boils down the might makes right argument, to the old European idea of running around and sticking flags in the ground. (This was noticed far before Karl Marx by many in the Enlightenment movement, and even some capitalists have dealt with it.)

But while some "free-market" anarchists are too absolutist and specific and tyrannical in regards to property, communists are perhaps overly vague, to the point where it is difficult to determine even how it would work (most of Marx's writing was a criticism of the conditions of capitalism).

Note: I ended up seeing avatar and thought about this post. The question of land ownership is never going to go away, it's even in big budget movies. I didn't notice too much "racism," but then again my concern is to move past capitalism, not to sort out specifics.

[RGacky3]

The notion that pre-civilization people simply ruled over each other by brute force is not at all accurate, the begining of civilization was only really just an advance in agriculture, before that hunter and gatherer groups were just as cooperative and democratic, if not more so, there is no evidence to say that pre-civilization people were simply brutal violent people.

[IcarusAngel]

If you have sources I'd be interested in seeing them. My purpose wasn't to belittle early human societies, but... well I've already explained my concern in this thread.

It is true that early humans pre-civilization cooperated. That was absolutely necessary for survival. They also had no concept of property and would often take over other people's land by 'brute force.' I imagine some type of property was protected within groups (maybe) but the concern with sharing was overwhelming and it was just assumed you could use other people's tools if they weren't using them. This is the complete opposite of modern property.

So, while they "shared," which is good, they'd resolve their disputes with violence. It's well known (last time I studied archeology and anthropology) that cro-magnon man essentially killed off the Neanderthals not just by their force but by their ability to work together etc. (Note: I looked into this and note that other scientists attribute the extinction of Neanderthals; but the point is many scientists wouldn't be surprised to see violent conflict among groups.)

[RGacky3]

They also had no concept of property and would often take over other people's land by 'brute force.' I imagine some type of property was protected within groups (maybe) but the concern with sharing was overwhelming and it was just assumed you could use other people's tools if they weren't using them. This is the complete opposite of modern property.

As far as land, owning or controling land came about with the advent of agriculture before that owning land was probably as rediculous sounding as owning air.

I'm sure there was a lot of violence, but I doubt it was over land.

As far as anarcho-capitalists who say might is right over land ownership are concerned, if they really believe that then the state has all the right in the world, because they have the might.

[Bud Struggle]

"In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still." -Benjamin Tucker, market socialist (From anarchist FAQ.)

I don't think there are any rights at all besides those granted by society. In America for example people are granted "ownership" of land under certain conditions--all stemming from societal rules. I can buy land from amither person and consider it "owned" but in reality I am is restricted as to what I can do with the land. I also can have the land taken away from me if I don't pay the required taxes on the land--so my ownership is not absolute.

So Robert's comment is correct--no one owns anything, you are granted use for a time--maybe over generations--by society if you follow the rules laid down. But in the end it is society that is in control.

[RGacky3]

I don't think there are any rights at all besides those granted by society.

Yes you do, your a christian, I gotta always remind you of this.

[Havet]

Yes you do, your a christian, I gotta always remind you of this.

lol

[Robert]

So Robert's comment is correct

"¡Viva Roberto!" echoes Gack, as he flings his sombrero high into the Chihuahuan sky.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes you do, your a christian, I gotta always remind you of this.

Ah--but it's a secular society and WORSE it's a secular website--I'd get banned if I start preaching Jesus. :(

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1644156]As far as land, owning or controling land came about with the advent of agriculture before that owning land was probably as rediculous sounding as owning air.


OK. So maybe the concept of "owning or controling land" was part and parcel of the advent of agriculture? In other words, that it was determined that it was ridiculous for everyone to have equal say over land?

[Green Dragon]

I imagine some type of property was protected within groups (maybe) but the concern with sharing was overwhelming and it was just assumed you could use other people's tools if they weren't using them.

OK. Assuming this is true, then: Why did the thinking change?

[RGacky3]

Ah--but it's a secular society and WORSE it's a secular website--I'd get banned if I start preaching Jesus.

No one said start preaching Jesus, but don't lie, or just pretend you believe something you don't.


OK. So maybe the concept of "owning or controling land" was part and parcel of the advent of agriculture? In other words, that it was determined that it was ridiculous for everyone to have equal say over land?

No, agriculture started, and in many instances that included property rights which came about through violence, before agriculture, private property made absolutely no sense. Even to take it through violence, even unjustly it made no sense, because there was no way you could use it to gain power.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't think there are any rights at all besides those granted by society. In America for example people are granted "ownership" of land under certain conditions--all stemming from societal rules. I can buy land from amither person and consider it "owned" but in reality I am is restricted as to what I can do with the land. I also can have the land taken away from me if I don't pay the required taxes on the land--so my ownership is not absolute.

So Robert's comment is correct--no one owns anything, you are granted use for a time--maybe over generations--by society if you follow the rules laid down. But in the end it is society that is in control.

Yes, I agree. The goal of society is to have the best set of rights while minimizing exploitation altogether. The day that no exploitation will exist will probably not exist in my lifetime. I don't think capitalism is going away any time soon, and only when it is really apparent will people start to say that technology can solve most of our problems w/o the need for exploitation. People are just not ready, yet, for the set of rights that communism prescribes.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The basic idea behind "might makes right over land" is that of egoism. The individual who has the power to and the will to take land will take the land and that all individuals in their adult years work for themselves no one else. It pretty much means that the individuals who are strong should not quell and should express their might for they are most powerful and secure in their individual.

[Bud Struggle]

People are just not ready, yet, for the set of rights that communism prescribes.

Maybe, but further--people are no where near ready for the RESPONSIBILITIES that Communism requies of its comrades. They are vast, freightening, dark and deep. I think a true evolution of the human will has to occur before Communism could become possible.

It is why I'm not a believer. Between the desire and the reality falls the chasm of the human spirit.

[Robert]

Maybe, but further--people are no where near ready for the RESPONSIBILITIES that Communism requies of its comrades. They are vast, freightening, dark and deep. I think a true evolution of the human will has to occur before Communism could become possible.Right you are. I've been looking for an opportunity to drop in the following observations about what people really want, and this is as good a place as any:

Have you ever looked closely at one of those vacation industry ads by companies like Sandals or Carnival Cruise Lines?

What I notice is that there are never any people in the pictures. Maybe one couple, two at most, on a very long stretch of beach. Here's a representative example, and be sure to watch to the last, barren frame:

http://www.sandals.com/main/negril/ne-home.cfm

The question is: who know more about what The People want? Karl Marx, or Madison Avenue ad execs?

Here's another telling photo.

http://www.carnival.com/cms/images2/shore_excursions/couple_swimming.jpg

[IcarusAngel]

The basic idea behind "might makes right over land" is that of egoism. The individual who has the power to and the will to take land will take the land and that all individuals in their adult years work for themselves no one else. It pretty much means that the individuals who are strong should not quell and should express their might for they are most powerful and secure in their individual.

Your thinking his highly flawed. The community has to create the conditions for productivity, by PROTECTING production and giving people certain rights. In your scenario everybody would be concerned with ensuring that they are not overtaken by another gang, which descends society into tribal thuggery. In a real community people are given democratic rights.

The individualism comes in when the community starts being oppressive and the individual either bolts like hell or he gets enough people to forcibly change the syste, through democracy, not blunt force. Then people's rights do change, and the individual initiated it. Or he finds another community to his liking if he does decide to leave.

If you don't have free communities and cooperatives you have tyranny, which is not anarchistic.

[RGacky3]

Maybe, but further--people are no where near ready for the RESPONSIBILITIES that Communism requies of its comrades. They are vast, freightening, dark and deep. I think a true evolution of the human will has to occur before Communism could become possible.

It is why I'm not a believer. Between the desire and the reality falls the chasm of the human spirit.

I don't know, they have more responsibilities under capitalism, its the difference between a monarchy where your responsibility is obaying and serving the monarch, and a democracy.

Thats the difference. Less freedom or more freedom, and generally its harder with less freedom.


The question is: who know more about what The People want? Karl Marx, or Madison Avenue ad execs?

Thats Ads are trying to appeal to a slither of the human population, and that slither is allready very well off and likely can afford a lot of freedom that others can't. Marx and other socialist appeal to the majority of the world who cannot afford freedom.