The extensive nature of property

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What is your view on property? What constitutes just property?

I was discussing the subject with an apparent 'natural rights' theorist, who inadvertently cited Locke as a justification - mix your labor with the soil, and it's yours. This seems like common sense at first, but Locke's argument is metaphysical. If property is acquired through labor, it belongs both to the workers who build these machines as well as those who own the machines as co-equals. You start getting into other, less definite theories when you say the workers don't always own the property, like contract theory.

The labor theory of property is also very restricted in its applications. Can you create a fence around an open spot of property and cite tort law if someone breaks your fence to get through? Can you monopolize on the only water supply in a five mile radius just because you improved on the lake? Does cutting grass constitute mixing labor with the land? If I encircle you with property, do you have to meet my desires just to get out? Can I shoot you if you land on my property? How does internet property come into being when it's not applicable to the labor theory? If an employee doesn't state through writing that all property I create between 8-5 is the company's, can I claim equal ownership over the means of production? Is intellectual property legitimate if it goes against the labor theory? If I create something out of the Earth and leave it unattended for ten years, do I still own it? If my improvements to land revert back, do I still own the land? What constitutes a just contract - voluntary lifetime slavery, contracting with an 8-year old, contracting with a desperate person, contracting with someone while holding a gun to their head?

Property is more complex than a lot of people would like it to be - both capitalists, and some socialists. What first appears to be individualistic can actually be oppressive. And certainly what is commonly shared may be oppressive. Don't touch my computer. :thumbup:

[Algernon]

I think you'd have to put that series of questions into some kind of context. Those scenarios don't exist in a vacuum but rather in a larger society that has it's own norms, values, and laws.

[trivas7]

The institution of private property in the full, legal meaning of the word was brought into existence by capitalism. In pre-capitalist eras private property existed de facto, not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. All property belonged to the head of the tribe, the king, and was held only by his pleasure, which could be revoked at any time. Like any feudal despot, socialist dictators have expropriated the property of recalcitrant capitalists and plundered the wealth of society's productive members.

[RGacky3]

In pre-capitalist eras private property existed de facto, not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. All property belonged to the head of the tribe, the king, and was held only by his pleasure, which could be revoked at any time. Like any feudal despot, socialist dictators have expropriated the property of recalcitrant capitalists and plundered the wealth of society's productive members.

Different Societies had different customs, many times, if not most, tribal heads of chieftens did'nt have any authority to take rights or things away.

Thats one problem I have with Marxists, in the quest to make a science out of social relations they try and apply universal formulas to explain human relations, which you can't do, history cannot be explained mechanically because history involves humans.

[pusher robot]

What is your view on property? What constitutes just property?

I think the question is silly. It's like asking what constitutes a just coconut.

If you want a meaningful discussion, you might begin by positing a definition of "just."

[pusher robot]

I was discussing the subject with an apparent 'natural rights' theorist, who inadvertently cited Locke as a justification - mix your labor with the soil, and it's yours. This seems like common sense at first, but Locke's argument is metaphysical. If property is acquired through labor, it belongs both to the workers who build these machines as well as those who own the machines as co-equals. You start getting into other, less definite theories when you say the workers don't always own the property, like contract theory.


Furthermore, it is not evident you are reading Locke the way he intended. All subsidiary property rights (i.e., everything derived from self-ownership) are, if self-ownership is primary, alienable. So a laborer can alienate his property rights to the products of his labor in exchange for some other quantity of goods or services, i.e., a "wage." This has been well-understood since ancient times.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Furthermore, it is not evident you are reading Locke the way he intended. All subsidiary property rights (i.e., everything derived from self-ownership) are, if self-ownership is primary, alienable. So a laborer can alienate his property rights to the products of his labor in exchange for some other quantity of goods or services, i.e., a "wage." This has been well-understood since ancient times.

I wasn't articulating a response for the Lockean notion of wage contract. I was pointing out the inconsistencies in his larger argument, which are clearly evident to anyone who doesn't lack perception. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Locke was wrong on more than just his support for slavery; his whole theory of property acquisition wrestles false premise. Even his "proviso" is a half-baked attempt at seeing the faults of his day.

Marx later goes on to demonstrate that you can't separate labor from the individual. If someone owns your labor, they own you. What the market commoditizes is labor power. Labor is a process that is exclusively dependent on my own decisions and actions. It's questionable if Locke really understood the true implication of his own theory, since he did (as I said) support slavery, as well as taking land from Native Americans.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think you'd have to put that series of questions into some kind of context. Those scenarios don't exist in a vacuum but rather in a larger society that has it's own norms, values, and laws.

Which is exactly why natural rights theorists - which constitute more than half of all capitalists - fail to achieve any academic support outside of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Egoist capitalists are furthermore judged hypocrites if they don't support anarchism, because they believe the state should monopolize on their particular beliefs just to prevent competition from socialists and even geoists.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think the question is silly. It's like asking what constitutes a just coconut.

If you want a meaningful discussion, you might begin by positing a definition of "just."

If I had done as much, this discussion would instead be focused on trying to disprove my definition of "just," as it has in other forums where even a simple article like "the" or "an" causes debate. I wanted to see people put up their own definitions, and more preferably show that there is no uniquely objective defeinition with which everyone can agree to (Algernon brought as much up). Fortunately, this reality is devastating not for socialism, which is much more flexible to property, but capitalism.

Indeed some of the grossest violations of property, if utilizing Locke, occur from capitalists.

[pusher robot]

I wanted to see people put up their own definitions, and more preferably show that there is no uniquely objective defeinition with which everyone can agree to (Algernon brought as much up).

I'm puzzled as to why you think this is any kind of insight. I challenge you to prove that any word whatsoever (excepting maybe onomatopoeias) has an "objective definition." The definition of words, like any other concept is inherently arbitrary. Where you're going wrong is the leap from "is arbitrary" to "cannot be agreed to."

E.g., why do we call a table a "table" and not a "ham sandwhich?" There is no underlying reason, it's entirely arbitrary. Yet, surprisingly to yourself I suppose, there is broad agreement among diverse individuals as to which objects are "tables" and which objects are "ham sandwiches."

[trivas7]

I challenge you to prove that any word whatsoever (excepting maybe onomatopoeias) has an "objective definition." The definition of words, like any other concept is inherently arbitrary.

If definitions are arbritrary everyone speaks only nonsense.

[Plagueround]

If definitions are arbritrary everyone speaks only nonsense.

You have plexiglassed my soup waffle requiem and tires.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pusher peed in my soup, the bastard.

[pusher robot]

If definitions are arbritrary everyone speaks only nonsense.

Not true. That would be true if definitions did not exist, but they do exist and are widely agreed to, they're just totally arbitrary.

Another example: there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. Why 60? Why not 50? Or 100? There is no reason. It's completely arbitrary. But it's also widely accepted that there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.

So it is with word definitions. The word "table" refers to a piece of furniture only because somewhere along the line somebody arbitrarily decided it would be so, and everyone else went along with it.

To argue otherwise, you need to demonstrate that there is something intrinsic about the piece of furniture you know as a table that actually causes you to think, "Hmmm, yes...T A B L E, that's the perfect description of this object!" Or, alternatively, describe to me any possible way how a person who has never heard or read any English at all could look at a table and figure out that the word for that object is "table." That would prove there that the word "table" has a objective, non-arbitrary meaning.

[trivas7]

Not true. That would be true if definitions did not exist, but they do exist and are widely agreed to, they're just totally arbitrary.

The nominalist would agree w/ you, not so the realist, for whom a definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed by a concept. Reality is not an arbitrary flux of indistinguishable sensations to which concepts can be imputed willy-nilly.

[pusher robot]

The nominalist would agree w/ you, not so the realist, for whom a definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed by a concept. Reality is not an arbitrary flux of indistinguishable sensations to which concepts can be imputed willy-nilly.

I'm not following your logic. Both nominalists and realists would agree that a definition identifies the nature of the instances of a concept. But nominalists quite correctly understand that those definitions do not materially exist in the physical universe, hence they are not objective. They exist, but only as concepts and are not independently discoverable. There is no scientific instrument that can divine the meaning of the word "table."

[trivas7]

I'm not following your logic. Both nominalists and realists would agree that a definition identifies the nature of the instances of a concept. But nominalists quite correctly understand that those definitions do not materially exist in the physical universe, hence they are not objective. They exist, but only as concepts and are not independently discoverable. There is no scientific instrument that can divine the meaning of the word "table."
My point is that definitions are part of a hierarchy of knowledge that is not arbitrary. Because of the rotation of the earth and the fact that human beings live on it there are good reasons why there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.

[pusher robot]

My point is that definitions are part of a hierarchy of knowledge that is not arbitrary. Because of the rotation of the earth and the fact that human beings live on it there are good reasons why there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.

No, there aren't. Really! Think about it. The reason comes down to "well, we've always done it that way." That it's 60 and not some other number, if there was any reason at all, is probably just because 60 is evenly divisible by a lot of numbers - which may seem like an objective, non-arbitrary reason, until you wonder...why, for that matter, why do we use base-10 counting? Why are there 10 numerals, and not, say, 12 or 16 or 2? That's also arbitrary. Then again, we're talking about definitions, so why is a second called a "second" and not a "first" or "third" or "recond?" Does that have something to do with the motion of the planets as well?

I don't agree that word definitions are part of any hierachy of knowledge about the physical universe. If they were, then you would be able to answer my challenges above, such as describing how a person with no knowledge of English whatsoever could ascertain through knowledge about the material world - and feel free to assume this person can access any knowledge whatsoever about the physical universe - that this object is described by the word "table."

[JimmyJazz]

You have plexiglassed my soup waffle requiem and tires.


Pusher peed in my soup, the bastard.

It's like a GeorgiDimitrovII thread in here!

Imperialism irons a missile!

[Self-Owner]

What is your view on property? What constitutes just property?

I was discussing the subject with an apparent 'natural rights' theorist, who inadvertently cited Locke as a justification - mix your labor with the soil, and it's yours. This seems like common sense at first, but Locke's argument is metaphysical. If property is acquired through labor, it belongs both to the workers who build these machines as well as those who own the machines as co-equals. You start getting into other, less definite theories when you say the workers don't always own the property, like contract theory.

The labor theory of property is also very restricted in its applications. Can you create a fence around an open spot of property and cite tort law if someone breaks your fence to get through? Can you monopolize on the only water supply in a five mile radius just because you improved on the lake? Does cutting grass constitute mixing labor with the land? If I encircle you with property, do you have to meet my desires just to get out? Can I shoot you if you land on my property? How does internet property come into being when it's not applicable to the labor theory? If an employee doesn't state through writing that all property I create between 8-5 is the company's, can I claim equal ownership over the means of production? Is intellectual property legitimate if it goes against the labor theory? If I create something out of the Earth and leave it unattended for ten years, do I still own it? If my improvements to land revert back, do I still own the land? What constitutes a just contract - voluntary lifetime slavery, contracting with an 8-year old, contracting with a desperate person, contracting with someone while holding a gun to their head?

Property is more complex than a lot of people would like it to be - both capitalists, and some socialists. What first appears to be individualistic can actually be oppressive. And certainly what is commonly shared may be oppressive. Don't touch my computer. :thumbup:


An interesting post. It's a shame the thread has taken a rather irrelevant detour into the philosophy of language, because I think there really is a question of, as Nozick would have put it, a theory of just acquisition. As a libertarian, I'm fully in favour of private property, but I realize it's not an easy topic - not just for libertarians like me, but for everyone.

(It's often said that libertarians have a problem with the legitimacy of property, but it's not so often realized that socialists have the same issue. If it's troublesome for one person to exclude 99 from something, it's just as troublesome for 99 to exclude the one.)

I'd like to know what you think GC - I'm not entirely averse to some geolibertarian ideas, so I'd happily hear you out.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm still trying to think about the subject myself.

Georgism/Geoism makes sense for the elimination of wealth that derives from simply holding/owning land, but I also agree with mutualists that even with land rents someone could accumulate capital and make wealth from some pretty reprehensible ways, including absentee landlordism. After all, if I have ten successful businesses scattered around the region from which I'm getting 10% by doing little/nothing, land rents equalize the situation, but I'm making wealth from simply owning something. Reversely, if something appreciates, I don't think making money from that is considered wrong, so I'm in a fix.

I think ultimately for an anarchist or even minarchist leftist/rightist it comes down to seeing the individual's contributions as being worth their reward. I think commerce should primarily be based in mutual assistance - which could on some small levels be "wage work." The most logical thing for the moment would be to have a geoist system and promote mutualism within the private sector by encouraging workers to demand nothing less than equal ownership, but it's speculation...

A lot of Austrian school advocates seem to neglect property's complexity, while many socialists start to call for the state/world community to "collectivize" all land and property and delegate private use based on the majority. Both of these approaches are too extreme.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Socialists also neglect property's complexity, in that they see all property rights as being exclusive rights.

[pusher robot]

A lot of Austrian school advocates seem to neglect property's complexity


I kind of think that's intentional. As far as many Austrians are concerned, "what is property" is irrelevant. "Property" is whatever society declares to be "property" and the purpose of economics is to explain how that property - whatever it is - is exchanged. Economics might be able to tell you what effects having different kinds of property will have on exchanges, which in turn might lead to certain conclusions about whether certain kinds of property are desirable or not, but I think most economists - especially Austrians - are happy to leave the complexities of "what is property?" to philosophers and sociologists (and voters), and accept the terms they are given.

[Dejavu]

This is fantastic. GeneCosta has simply amazed me over the last several months. I think he's really starting to 'get it.' Some more of that and we'll be seeing eye to eye in no time. :)

Anyway, the capitalist ( of the FM variety) conception of property is opposed to positive obligations to others. This is important and helps clear up a lot of fog set around the notion of property , or more specifically, how the capitalist concept of property matches up to other concepts of property. Note, not all capitalist concepts about property are the same.

I recommend giving this a read :

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt2.html#1.2%20Title%20and%20Contract


Its long and fairly in depth but a treasure trove of information.

[IcarusAngel]

LOL. Keep up your delusions Dejavu aka baconator.

That's a far right, revisionist libertarian site. And anarchists (real ones) are right to point out mixing labor with land = ownership is tyrannical - Proudhon pointed this out.

But who are you really?

[Dejavu]

LOL. Keep up your delusions Dejavu aka baconator.

That's a far right, revisionist libertarian site. And anarchists (real ones) are right to point out mixing labor with land = ownership is tyrannical - Proudhon pointed this out.

But who are you really?

Thats not what Proudhon concluded. He was against the state contract conception of property which he dubbed 'private' as opposed to individuals capitalizing property which he called ' possession.' Read the man before you make comments about him.

[IcarusAngel]

In "Selected Writings" he clearly states he's against the idea of mixing labor with land in order to own it, about one-hundred pages in.

Sounds like you need to read him, instead of getting highly revisionist accounts of his work from libertarian sites.

[IcarusAngel]

He also says it's up to individual communities to determine what constitute "possessions" in the same work.

Baconator you such a propagandist. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I kind of think that's intentional. As far as many Austrians are concerned, "what is property" is irrelevant. "Property" is whatever society declares to be "property" and the purpose of economics is to explain how that property - whatever it is - is exchanged. Economics might be able to tell you what effects having different kinds of property will have on exchanges, which in turn might lead to certain conclusions about whether certain kinds of property are desirable or not, but I think most economists - especially Austrians - are happy to leave the complexities of "what is property?" to philosophers and sociologists (and voters), and accept the terms they are given.

Maybe the dominant theorists like Von Mises and Hayek (actually, I'm quite sure Hayek conceded as much), but the Mises community at Mises.org is crawling with people who stipulate that all instances of mixing labor with land are justified. Some strange fellows even defend large scale property where labor isn't involved at all. Curious people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thats not what Proudhon concluded. He was against the state contract conception of property which he dubbed 'private' as opposed to individuals capitalizing property which he called ' possession.' Read the man before you make comments about him.

Angel is referencing "use and occupancy," which Tucker later adopts from Proudhon and even incorporates into his egoist platform. Occupancy sounds reasonable. I don't see too many people defending another person's property if they've left it unattended for ten years. It would also be economically disadvantageous to do as much - for a domestic home, you're spending money you shouldn't have to, and for commercial property you'd have a larger problem with theft and worker/co-owner disobedience.

[Dejavu]

He also says it's up to individual communities to determine what constitute "possessions" in the same work.

Baconator you such a propagandist. :laugh:


"Man has created every thing — every thing save the material itself. Now, I maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition of permanent labor, — granting, for the time being, his right of property in things which he has produced. "

"This is my proposition: The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced."

"The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property."

"The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor. "

"From the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and the jus ad rem, the right to a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over each other’s person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is only the jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry, — and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them, — it is by virtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re. "

Proudhon believed in property's dichotomy. Like Karl Marx he divided the means of production from the products produced by those means. He was just as adamate as any free marketer about your right to dispose of a personal asset , a possession which is a product of social labor but you may not 'own' or pay wages to that same labor because that implies you own the materials they are using to produce a product.

Proudhon was against the first definition of property which he called propriatarianism which is based on Roman law and the State protecting someone's right to own capital. He said in such a system of propriatarian property, state coercion is necessary. This naturally pits him against usuary-interest , rent , and inherentence. Proudhon very much believed in a labor's right to product. He concluded that since labor possession is true it contradicts properietarianism because labor possession necessarily includes occupation which would destroy the concept of wages.

In short , believed A. Raw materials for production can't belong to a single individual. B. Capital cannot belong to a single individual. C. Labor energy cannot be traded on an open market. D. Labor possession necessitates occupancy which destroys the concept of properietarianism.

He had the same premise as keeping the product of your labor, he just drew different conclusions.

This is the result of being indoctrinated into the failed Labor Theory of Value prevalent during that time. Free Marketer who adheres to the Labor theory of value = Mutualist.

[Dejavu]

Angel is referencing "use and occupancy," which Tucker later adopts from Proudhon and even incorporates into his egoist platform. Occupancy sounds reasonable. I don't see too many people defending another person's property if they've left it unattended for ten years. It would also be economically disadvantageous to do as much - for a domestic home, you're spending money you shouldn't have to, and for commercial property you'd have a larger problem with theft and worker/co-owner disobedience.


This concept of occupancy is valid if one denies the economic laws of supply and demand as it relates to labor energy and trade thereof.

However , I agree with what you said here in general. A possessor of property will only hold on to it so long as its producing value and he knows this through profit. If it is a net loss to him yet there is a high demand for it ( for other uses) he will either convert the property into something useful or sell it off. Its almost like choosing not to burn every other paycheck you recieve.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is the result of being indoctrinated into the failed Labor Theory of Value prevalent during that time. Free Marketer who adheres to the Labor theory of value = Mutualist.Actually, I think Kevin Carson - a "neo-"mutualist has done an excellent job of incorporating labor theory of value into subjective value.

[Dejavu]

Actually, I think Kevin Carson - a "neo-"mutualist has done an excellent job of incorporating labor theory of value into subjective value.

Can you elaborate on how the two concepts are mutually inclusive?

[IcarusAngel]

Well, it looks like Baconator the propagandist Googled Proudhon's name and "property" and quoted what he could find from a list of Proudhon quotes.

As always, he proves his stupidity.


That's a far right, revisionist libertarian site. And anarchists (real ones) are right to point out mixing labor with land = ownership is tyrannical - Proudhon pointed this out.


Thats not what Proudhon concluded. He was against the state contract conception of property which he dubbed 'private' as opposed to individuals capitalizing property which he called ' possession.' Read the man before you make comments about him.

He certainly did conclude it. This was written in Proudhon's "selected writings", where he maintained his strong opposition to land ownership.

Your quotes, on the other hand, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making and in most cases refute your own argument.



"Man has created every thing — every thing save the material itself. Now, I maintain that this material he can only possess and use, on condition of permanent labor, — granting, for the time being, his right of property in things which he has produced. "

LOL. This is from What is Property, and if you read it, you can see that Proudhon is actually making the case against property ownership in this instance. Are you absolutely blind:


"I maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and industry . . . but that he acquires no right to the land. 'Let the labourer have the fruits of his labour.' Very good; but I do not understand that property in products carries with it property in raw material. [/b]Does the skill of the fisherman, who on the same coast can catch more fish than his fellows, make him proprietor of the fishing-grounds?[/b] Can the expertness of a hunter ever be regarded as a property-title to a game-forest? The analogy is perfect, -- the industrious cultivator finds the reward of his industry in the abundancy and superiority of his crop. If he has made improvements in the soil, he has the possessor's right of preference. Never, under any circumstances, can he be allowed to claim a property-title to the soil which he cultivates, on the ground of his skill as a cultivator.

He is MOCKING the concept of property, and this is used on the anarcho-syndicalist, "Anarchist-FAQ" website against capitalism, you buffoon.


"This is my proposition: The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced."

LOL. This is from the same exact segment of Proudhon's writing, where he's actually condemning land ownership and private property.

You are absolutely hilarious Baconator. Basically, you broke up a few paragraphs that you can't comprehend, and are claiming that they're different soruces. :laugh:


"The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property."

In these quotes, Proudhon was noting that workers inherently have a right to what they create, thus they have a shared ownership in the means of production.

This contradicts capitalist theory.


""From the distinction between possession and property arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and the jus ad rem, the right to a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor. Thus the right of the partners to a marriage over each other’s person is the jus in re; that of two who are betrothed is only the jus ad rem. In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, as a laborer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry, — and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them, — it is by virtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re. "

Again, this contradicts capitalism and supports the position of worker cooperation.


Proudhon believed in property's dichotomy. Like Karl Marx he divided the means of production from the products produced by those means. He was just as adamate as any free marketer about your right to dispose of a personal asset , a possession which is a product of social labor but you may not 'own' or pay wages to that same labor because that implies you own the materials they are using to produce a product.

He was not a free-marketeer in the least, given that he opposed the idea of land ownership, and believed workers had an inherent right to own what they create.

His opposition to land ownership continued all throughout his life, even when he started supporting the idea of curbing the role of the state through reforms of the state:

"Individualist anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker, tend to reject the anarcho-capitalist Lockean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean) position in favour of the anarchist position of "occupancy and use" (or "possession", to use Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon)'s term), particularly in land. One notable exception is Lysander Spooner, who does not require that land use be "continual" to retain ownership.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-23) Similarly, anarcho-capitalist Rothbard argued that one must "use the land, to cultivate it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it." and did not require continual use to retain ownership. However, most individualist anarchists accepted Proudhon's position on land: "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." If there was a shortage of land, he "accept[ed] equal division. Anything else… is an abuse."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-24) Anarchists critics of "anarcho-capitalism" also note that Proudhon's "What is Property? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F)" explicitly attacks the position on land ownership supported by Spooner and anarcho-capitalists.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#cite_note-25)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism

His opposition to property is clear as day, and is one of the most harshest critiques of property in existence. Land cannot be owned or monopolized through "use," and people have a right to divy it up should it become more consolidated.


Proudhon was against the first definition of property which he called propriatarianism which is based on Roman law and the State protecting someone's right to own capital.

Proudhon opposed capitalist and state property, this is explicitly made clear in his writings, and he opposed capitalism and the grouns it was a government program.


This is the result of being indoctrinated into the failed Labor Theory of Value prevalent during that time. Free Marketer who adheres to the Labor theory of value = Mutualist.

LOL. His opposition towards property is based on social politics, not necessarily on economics.

For example, in the same work cited above he says it is up to communities themselves to determine these "possessions," which are also anti-capitalist in nature.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There is no perfect theory to property. The best use of property is its utility. Interestingly enough Von Mises disagrees with Rothbard and other, newer adherents to his philosophy, and he actually takes up the leftist position:

"All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider
the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they
contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily
arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of
goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible
expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn
trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from
violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely
admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law."
--Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, 1922

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into
existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power
and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had
previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors
were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private
property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of
acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the
direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership
either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent
spoilation of their predecessor."
--Human Action, 1949


"Government is a necessary institution, the means to make the social
system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent
acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin.
Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is
not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful
human coexistence possible."
--Liberty and Property, 1958

“Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, - nonsense upon stilts.”
- Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies

Hayek, Rothbard, and Rand are more or less living in denial. Friedman and Von Mises were actually candid in rejecting such nonsense; however, they believed socialism could not bring better utility. It is our job to prove them wrong.

[trivas7]

Hayek, Rothbard, and Rand are more or less living in denial.
Denial of what,exactly? The Randian position is that the right to life is the source of all rights -- and the right to property is their only implementation.

The right to property is a right to action, not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. The law of causality is the source of property rights: property is what is produced by men's mind and labor. As you cannot have effects w/o causes, so you cannot have wealth w/o its source: human intelligence.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The right to property is a right to action

Which is of course restrained to what others allow you, even by Objectivist standards.

[trivas7]

Which is of course restrained to what others allow you, even by Objectivist standards.
Nope. The right to property isn't determined by society, but by the requirements of human beings to sustain their existence: since he has to support his life by his own effort and the guidance of his own mind, man must be able to dispose of the product of his effort, property. If he can't dispose of his effort, he can't dispose of his life. W/o property rights, no other rights can be practiced.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nope. The right to property isn't determined by society, but by the requirements of human beings to sustain their existence: since he has to support his life by his own effort and the guidance of his own mind, man must be able to dispose of the product of his effort, property. If he can't dispose of his effort, he can't dispose of his life. W/o property rights, no other rights can be practiced.

Bold emphasis: this requirement is mostly dependent on 1.) nature 2.) the person's capabilities and 3.) others permitting him or her to defend their life.

The use of the word rights aside, you would have to extend the notion of personal property pretty far if you want to lump hunting and gathering as existing property.

[trivas7]

Bold emphasis: this requirement is mostly dependent on 1.) nature 2.) the person's capabilities and 3.) others permitting him or her to defend their life.

I deny that my right to my own survival is dependent on the permission of others. Man is his own end, not the sanction of others.

[IcarusAngel]

There is no perfect theory to property. The best use of property is its utility. Interestingly enough Von Mises disagrees with Rothbard and other, newer adherents to his philosophy, and he actually takes up the leftist position:

"All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider
the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they
contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily
arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of
goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible
expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn
trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from
violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely
admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law."
--Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, 1922

"Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into
existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power
and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had
previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors
were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private
property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of
acts which were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the
direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership
either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent
spoilation of their predecessor."
--Human Action, 1949


"Government is a necessary institution, the means to make the social
system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent
acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin.
Government is not, as some people like to say, a necessary evil; it is
not an evil, but a means, the only means available to make peaceful
human coexistence possible."
--Liberty and Property, 1958

“Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, - nonsense upon stilts.”
- Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies

Hayek, Rothbard, and Rand are more or less living in denial. Friedman and Von Mises were actually candid in rejecting such nonsense; however, they believed socialism could not bring better utility. It is our job to prove them wrong.

I'm well aware of that quote from Bentham, but I hadn't seen the von Mises quotes.

Are you sure he wasn't just explaining the socialist interpretation of history and property? I agree that property is based on slavery and force and the farther back you go, the more it is likely to be directly stolen from people. I couldn't have said it better myself

However, even with these precondintions, Mises still seemed to believe that the capitalistic economic system was the only system that "worked."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I deny that my right to my own survival is dependent on the permission of others. Man is his own end, not the sanction of others.

Metaphysically it's crap, but reality smells worse than a skunk most of the time anyway.