Free Keene

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 13, 2009 @ 11:44 am

Having read the article, I’m convinced that atheists, not anarchists, were the issue here.

Sound like stupid teen kids too, because they’re totally removing Nietzche’s quote from context.

Comment by Larry The Dwarf

July 13, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

What will you do when someone spray paints voluntaryist graffiti on private property? I’ve seen you go through many labels since I started listening to FTL several years ago. I still think you spend way too much time masterdebating the perfect label for yourself, when it could be otherwise dedicated to finding real-life solutions for liberty.

Comment by Ian

July 13, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

I’ll cross that bridge if I ever come to it. I’d probably give up on labels entirely. ’till then, voluntaryist works fine. Also, I’m a talk host. Sometimes we debate minutia. If you don’t like the topics on my radio show, either tune out or call to change it.

We have real life solutions and we are living them. Move liberty people to NH and be free.

Comment by nick

July 13, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

Larry,

At least “voluntaryist” doesn’t have hundreds of years of connotation.

I think that Ian’s post here is as much a response to public news as it is an update on his labels. No doubt there are people looking at this site for the possible perps of “anarchist” graffiti. This is a great response from Ian making it clear that we, in no way, can find acceptable the actions of property destruction.

It’s good to make clear over and over again, because someone wanting to do extreme harm to Free Keene would go spray paint FreeKeene.com across the nearest church. If we hold a reputation for denoucing acts like that wherever they pop up, we will hold more postitive PR when we come under attack later.

Comment by Slim

July 13, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

I would like to see someone from the freekeene.com who describes themselves as a Anarchist to offer help clean up the graffiti and reach out to the congregation.

Comment by Larry The Dwarf

July 13, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

Don’t take my comments the wrong way. I certainly don’t mean to berate you. I greatly appreciate everything you’re doing (which is much more than I’m capable of at the moment). There certainly have been nights when I’ve tuned out because of the endless debating of minutia. But I’m still going to voice my opinion, whether you like it or not. Sorry if you don’t like that…

Comment by Ian

July 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

Just another blog comment, Larry. Not every episode will be right for everyone. Anyway, back to the topic.

Comment by Frederick B.Parsells

July 13, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that someone affiliated in any way with the local Free State project is responsible for the graffiti found on the Hope Chapel. That said, I was there today to do what I could in my limited capacity as strictly a resident of Keene as efforts to remove the paint were being demonstrated and explored. It is clear that even after most of the paint is removed, there will be some residual staining left on the building’s white painted surface. I would suggest that it would be a wondeful gesture by those Keene area individuals who visit this site to volunteer their services collectively on a bright summer day to re-paint the building. I was speaking with a board member of the Hope Chapel who said the congregation did not have a lot of money. It is also not clear what the insurance company will do or offer as a settlement; if anything. Perhaps one or more of you could start a movement by contacting Pastor Mabe to offer your help. It would be a wonderful PR tool for the movement.

Comment by Joseph Mabe

July 13, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

Ian… thanks for a thoughtful and intellectual response.

Let me state very clearly that my opinions do not necessarily represent the rest of the people who hang out at Hope Chapel. We are a pretty diverse bunch.

“Taxes are Slavery” is my own opinion: real, studied and (US) Constitutionally correct opinion, but still mine.

I will tell you that nobody I spoke to yesterday at either ouf our church services wanted to punish the person.

I actually find some part of what he did indicative admirable qualities:

1) someone willing to risk jail or worse punishment
2) someone who has a definative belief system
3) someone who likes to broadcast his views
4) someone who is an extremist.
5) someone unhappy with the current structure, a non-conformist. A Rebel.

Except Lack of being man enough to do things publically, and Lack of Love for People, Lack of Miracles, combined with a great deal of hedonist-based narcissism, I’d say he shows 5 of the characteristics of my favorite person: Jesus! Woot…

Joseph Mabe

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

I would like to see someone from the freekeene.com who describes themselves as a Anarchist to offer help clean up the graffiti and reach out to the congregation.

That would backfire. The general public would then associate freekeene.com as “the anarchists who caused the damage”.

Then out come the torches and pitchforks. That’s how propaganda works. People hear and see what they want to.

Better to just help out to help out because you want to, not because of a PR agenda.

Comment by Markus

July 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm

Good post Ian. I was in Seattle during the World Trade protests some years ago where “Anarchists” moved into an abandoned private building (as well as vandalized many stores in the downtown area).

I think Voluntaryist IS the ideal word as it doesn’t have any negative history and it’s so easy to understand the concept…a society where people voluntarily deal with each other.

Comment by Tristan

July 13, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

Moving into abandoned private property – well, if its abandoned then it is no longer owned so what’s the problem?
There are strains of libertarianism which hold that absentee landlordism is not just.

I personally prefer to see vacant land being used rather than going to waste until the owner under the state’s law can be bothered to extract rent from it.

I tend to agree that vandalism is pointless, and certainly wrong in this case and many others.
I do question the automatic assumption that private property is justly gained – much private property seems to have been acquired through violence, either by the state or otherwise, certainly every corporation holds land in a legal fiction which only has currency thanks to the state’s threat of violence.

As a final note, during the riots in Athens a while back a street stall was badly damaged. It was the anarchists who came forward to help the owner not the state.

Comment by Slim

July 13, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

Zeus, Most people I know from the liberty community believe people are mostly good from your comment it sounds that you do not believe that or you might believe that and are just cynical. I do hope that you come to realize people are mostly good as I have and loose the negativity.

PR is a great reason to help out others, and from what I have seen happen with other liberty lovers the movement could use any and every bit of good PR, but that would only be a side benefit the true benefit is the feelings you get from doing acts of kindness.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

There are strains of libertarianism which hold that absentee landlordism is not just.

Sounds like those particular strains just want to control the life of the landlord and what he or she does with their property.

“You *have* to live in that house or we’re gonna *take* it!”. It’s a silly, self-serving and unprincipled perspective: “Oooh! You just put your sandwich down on that table while you went to get a drink, that must mean you don’t want it so we’re gonna take it and eat it!”.

“Oooh! You just took your clothes off to take a shower! Must mean you don’t want them clothes!”

“Oooh! You’re not in your car because you’re watching TV or sleeping inside your house! Must mean you don’t want that car anymore!”

Ad infinitum absurdum.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

Zeus, Most people I know from the liberty community believe people are mostly good from your comment it sounds that you do not believe that or you might believe that and are just cynical. I do hope that you come to realize people are mostly good as I have and loose the negativity.

Perhaps I am cynical. Mostly though, I’m simply aware that the liberty movement has statist enemies (and just plain nutballs) that will take no small amount of pleasure in confusing the masses about our intentions, and attempt to dehumanize and vilify us. I also realize many people hear or see things they already have preconceived notions about and rarely vet the sources their information comes from.

PR is a great reason to help out others

And my point is that one does not need a reason to help others.

Comment by Rob Steel

July 13, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

That vandalism is pretty pathetic, and it does look like a few stupid kids did it. Offering to help repaint/repair the damage does sound like a great “voluntaryist” thing to do. As far as which “…ism” to use, I have been rocking “principled individualist” lately and it seems to be without negative connotation.

Comment by dalebert

July 13, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

I like Slim’s idea of putting together an effort to help clean and repaint the church. I was going to suggest it myself but he beat me to it. I only just now read the story.

Everything we do at Free Keene is about changing hearts and minds in a peaceful direction. I suppose there is “PR” benefit to helping this church but that falls far short of describing all we can gain by getting involved with our neighbors and working together to make Keene a better place to live.

Comment by leds

July 13, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

voluntaryist is not even a proper word you idiot. anarchism is a real idea that can be a real thing if people persist. smashing windows and being angry about the state of the world is happening whether people are anarchist or not. but voluntaryists……what the heck are they doing but stroking their own ego’s…..? idiots. fuck you.

Comment by dalebert

July 13, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

Ian, recently I expressed a great deal of concern about whether people associate a certain person with Free Keene. You expressed more optimism than I and pointed out that the controversy and the ensuing long public thread ended up becoming an excellent opportunity for us to clarify exactly where we stand. Perhaps this disturbing event can also offer an opportunity for peaceful anarchists to do the same. Let’s not quibble over the use of a single word.

The word “Christian” conjures up all different kinds of images for different people and the range of differences between those who use the label of “Christian” to describe themselves is incredibly broad. I use the label of “anarchist” to describe myself. I am peaceful and I respect rights and property. I denounce the actions of this vandal and I want to help this church. Who’s with me?

Comment by Ian

July 13, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

There’s no quibbling here. I’m just making my position clear. I certainly can’t stop people from hanging on to the term if that’s their preference.

I like the idea of helping these folks repaint, but I wonder – will you wear your circle A logo shirt to the painting party?

Comment by Sam's Dad

July 13, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

If some Free Staters/FreeKeene folks offer to help put the church back whole, I will send $100 towards paint for the project.

Any others out there want to match me in this effort??

I’m counting on Ian/Mark to hold the funds until the project gets organized.

Sam’s Dad

Comment by John Pollak

July 13, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

I like your point, Ian, and you are right to say that the word “anarchy” is tainted. However I am afraid that you are playing into their hands…I think it is possible that if we reclaim the word we win. As it now stands, you can pick whatever flavor of government as long as you believe in government. By poisoning the word anarchy, they have eliminated all options that involve peace. By reclaiming this word, we would allow ourselves to look like a realistic option.

Similarly Ian, you call yourself a Voluntaryist or whatever thats fine, but you do meet the definition of the word “Anarchist”. When you discuss voluntaryism with new people, they will figure out that you are an anarchist and then you will still have to fight the tainted image of the word anyway…

Comment by dalebert

July 13, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

Sam’s Dad, I’ll contribute some money toward supplies also. Thank you for helping.

Comment by Anonymous

July 13, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

One’s prime concern should not be labels but the teaching of ideas. The fact that anarchism is often confused with nihilism is not reason to reject the word outright.

You are being unreasonably sectarian if you dissociate with libertarians who use the word anarchist. I personally use the word–with digression–as it allows me to filter out those who are genuinely knowledgeable about the idea and those who are ignorant of it.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 13, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Zeus wrote the following regarding strands of libertarianism that do not acknowledge absentee landlordism:

Sounds like those particular strains just want to control the life of the landlord and what he or she does with their property.

This is question-begging, plain and simple. Not everyone has the same understanding of property rights. For some libertarians, occupancy and use is the standard of ownership and therefore people do not have the right to rent out property because the second they do, it ceases to be their property.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree (I’m agnostic on the issue), but it’s simple-minded to just accuse people of not respecting property rights because they have a different conception of them than you.

I’d recommend reading the section of Kevin Carson’s book “Studies in Mutualist Political Economy” in the following link. It does a good job of explaining different libertarian theories of property.

http://www.mutualist.org/id66.html

Comment by Keith

July 13, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

It’s too bad that anarchist, atheists, kids, punks or whomever did that. I’m proud to attend a religious meeting in Keene and I don’t find in controlling, at all. I think the people responsible for this act of aggression are confused.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Not everyone has the same understanding of property rights. For some libertarians, occupancy and use is the standard of ownership and therefore people do not have the right to rent out property because the second they do, it ceases to be their property.

They’re free to believe whatever they want to believe. That said, my gun will have just as many words to say to any such libertarian strain as it would with anyone else attempting to appropriate my land, my home or other property just because I’m not in it at the time, using it at the moment or because I choose to allow others to use it for a fee.

For me, it is a fundamental violation of the Non-Aggression Principle for someone to dictate what I may or may not do with property I traded value for value to acquire.

This libertarian strain smacks of communism i.e. “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole” with the minor difference that the owner is “whomever’s in the house at the time”.

Under this theory, no one would ever be able to leave their homes to go grocery shopping or a night on the town for fear that some squatters might break in and claim ownership while you were away.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

July 13, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

From Ian’s original post:

“…..you’ve got a SERIOUS public relations problem on your hands.”

Sounds like projection to me. Since no evidence has been offered indicating that a Free-Stater or a regular participant on this site had anything to do with this vandalism, why even acknowledge any association a person might make between the two? Answer: the image of Free-Staters in the minds of the few citizens of Keene who are aware of them is EXTREMELY mixed (I’m being diplomatic). Perhaps it’s a case of reaping what has been sown from behaving in ways that most people find bizarre, non-constructive, childishly egotistical and irrelevant to real-life concerns. It’s bad for business. So someone messes up a church and Ian (unnecessarily, one would think) responds by going into damage control mode. Interesting.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

So someone messes up a church and Ian (unnecessarily, one would think) responds by going into damage control mode. Interesting.

As far as I can tell, he’s simply pointing out a local example of how the term “anarchist” has become soiled and why he chooses to use “voluntaryist” instead. I think you’re reading more into it than is there.

Comment by nick

July 13, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Ann,

Is anything ever written here right for you? Some people here call themselves “anarchists.” Someone painted a church with “anarchist” symbols. There is a reasonable connection to be made and addressed.

This is in addition to, as I’m not sure you knew, Mr. Mabe began the conversation about his church with a comment in another blog post. I think it was reasonable to respond publicly to that.

I don’t think it should have turned into another discussion about labels, but it was perfectly reasonable to respond publicly to the disgraceful acts carried out on Hope Chapel’s property. As Free Keene grows, not every last post will be activism related. Who knows, we may launch a “local news” area that focuses on just community things.

Comment by apoliticalocalartist

July 13, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

Seriously, folks, that black/red spray paint will be a bitch to cover up. Here’s my suggestion: Get a can or few of GOOD gray primer. Go over the black/red in several light, misty, but solid coats. Maybe have to go over it again, after the first coat/coats have dried ~ 24 hrs…THAT should make repainting much easier, since I’m assuming that they will want to repaint in white. Otherwise, you will have to remove all the paint down to bare wood/original primer…Doing less than the above will result in “shadows” still showing through after the paint has dried…*AND*, did anybody think that maybe this was a “FALSE FLAG” attack???……those Swanzey cops sure seemed bored when I was delivering their weed last week….how’d you guys like the sour deisel? killer smoke, huh?…rasta-MON!…

Comment by Abbie

July 13, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

I’m with Dale. I use the label “Christian” even though it is commonly attached to state-worshipping apostate churches. I just never leave the people I talk with, with just the one word label to judge me by.

Would love to participate in any cleanup operation at the church. Also, perhaps the pastor could write a letter to a few store managers around here for some supplies to help.

Joseph: Incidentally, this issue made me aware of your church. When I start getting Sundays off, I’d love to visit.

Comment by Keith

July 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

“*AND*, did anybody think that maybe this was a ‘FALSE FLAG’ attack???”

Why would that happen? I don’t think anyone has seriously tried to connect to the FreeKeene.com anyway. The most well known folks at FreeKeene are not anarchists or atheists, anyway.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

If it had been a false flag, they would have put the web address on there or at least some kind of “FK” symbol.

Comment by Adam

July 13, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Dale,

If you have some way to take contributions I’ll gladly match Sam’s Dad’s $100.

Comment by KDus

July 13, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

Convinced.

Comment by the lord

July 13, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Abandoned property becomes one with nature again free to homestead. If someone abandons a house why would it not become one with nature yet again and up for grabs as any other resource?

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Who gets to decide whether it’s “abandoned” or “just not being used at the moment”? Should some arbitrary number of days, weeks, months or years be used to make that determination? If so, who gets to decide that?

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 13, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

For me, it is a fundamental violation of the Non-Aggression Principle for someone to dictate what I may or may not do with property I traded value for value to acquire.

It seems to me like you’re taking contemporary property rights as a given, and aren’t considering the merit of the idea that most property and property “titles”. Most land that is rented was gained through mass appropriation both indirectly and directly facilitated by the State. Additional to this, we Tuckerites think that the monopoly on money has led to artificial and non-market interest rates. With the prohibitions on free banking, such systems in which interest upon bonds of all kinds and dividends upon stock would fall to the minimum bank interest charge cannot exist.

I don’t think any left-libertarian advocates seizing your home or property if they don’t like that you’ve abandoned your home or charge rent; we find it distasteful, but I think we can universally agree that it would simply go the way of the dinosaurs in a free society through natural, organic organization absent the State.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 13, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

For me, it is a fundamental violation of the Non-Aggression Principle for someone to dictate what I may or may not do with property I traded value for value to acquire.

You’re still relying on the same logical fallacy (question-begging). Under the occupancy-and-use system, land ceases to be yours when you vacate it. It’s not a question of people dictating what you may or may not do with your property, it’s a question of whether or not it actually is your property.

Under this theory, no one would ever be able to leave their homes to go grocery shopping or a night on the town for fear that some squatters might break in and claim ownership while you were away.

That’s absurd. Property rights can only be effectively enforced by local consensus. Most people understand that there is a difference between leaving the house to go to the grocery store and leaving the house for 30 years without telling anyone where you’re going and would be able to enforce property claims on this commonsense basis.

If people believe in perpetual ownership rights, they will enforce perpetual ownership claims. If they believe in occupancy-and-use rights, they will enforce occupancy-and-use claims. Personally, I’m not sold on either system, but I don’t see why living in one would be worse than living in the other.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 13, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

Who gets to decide whether it’s “abandoned” or “just not being used at the moment”? Should some arbitrary number of days, weeks, months or years be used to make that determination? If so, who gets to decide that?

My solution to the abandonment problem (a part of the homestead principle/labor theory of property) is that anything which is reclaimed by nature (e.g. When you abandon your car in the woods and the weeds overgrow it, when a boat sinks) or suffers damage that renders the property to be without utility (in the sense of returning the status of capital good), it is abandoned.

Now, that said, I can imagine you’re thinking “so someone can just walk into my house and take my TV?”. The hard answer is yes, but I don’t think that this would be likely. You’re not likely to gain friends by acting like such a douchebag, you could always take it back because they haven’t repaired it ,and it’s just a hassle. Now, here I bring up an important part in the abandonment– repairment.

When you take the broken TV to the repair shop, the TV is unowned. When the man who repairs TV’s repairs the TV, he becomes the owner. But, as a evolved psychological condition, we find the utility in simply exchanging the television you have just become the owner of for a progressive repair rate (the repairman has an incentive to the exchange for a myriad of reasons, a few being the benefit of just getting fluid capital as opposed to having a hojillion TVs should you not return them (and I doubt they’d even get that far)).

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

It seems to me like you’re taking contemporary property rights as a given, and aren’t considering the merit of the idea that most property and property “titles”.

I’m just assuming that a seller who says they have a valid, moral claim of ownership over something is being truthful, particularly if a trustworthy third-party vouches for them and there are no challengers to the claim.

Most land that is rented was gained through mass appropriation both indirectly and directly facilitated by the State.

If that happened before I was born, it’s none of my business. I live in the now, not the past. It’s not my responsibility to make up for the wrongdoings of others who are long dead. I’m just looking to make an honest trade of value for value and I shouldn’t have to be the Dark Knight Detective to do it. If it is discovered, however, during the vetting process that the state is currently involved with the property, then it would be wise to back away from that deal and have nothing to do with them. And it is always wise not to deal with banks if one can help it.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

Stuff that Dr. Q said

The system you describe seems to require me to care what the rest of the community thinks about *my* property. I find that absurd. If I trade value for value in an honest exchange for something, be it a baseball, a grapefruit or a house, it is mine to do with as I please until I am dead or incapacitated and even then I can still will it along to someone else. If they choose to sell it, that’s their right as owner.

Ownership means doing whatever you want with your property. You are its “god”. Your will is law.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 13, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

If that happened before I was born, it’s none of my business.

Are you serious? It doesn’t matter to you how property was acquired in the past, which most certainly played a part in who’s hands it is in now? You’re functionally pulling the rug out from beneath yourself by ditching the argument as a whole without bothering to justify the most basic premises.

Moreover, what if I were to kill you, steal your home, and pass it on to my son. Some years after I die, your descendants come along and say “we want the property back”, could my son just say “it was in the past, so it doesn’t count” be just as legitimate?

I live in the now, not the past. It’s not my responsibility to make up for the wrongdoings of others who are long dead.

I don’t think anyone said that you ought to make up for wrongdoings; we’re just pointing out that contemporary property titles aren’t even legitimate in the first place, and that the State distorts how natural property rights would evolve.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

My solution to the abandonment problem (a part of the homestead principle/labor theory of property) is that anything which is reclaimed by nature (e.g. When you abandon your car in the woods and the weeds overgrow it, when a boat sinks) or suffers damage that renders the property to be without utility (in the sense of returning the status of capital good), it is abandoned.

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Now, that said, I can imagine you’re thinking “so someone can just walk into my house and take my TV?”.

Not thinking that at all. There wasn’t any TV mentioned until just now. You were just talking about nature reclaiming stuff. I don’t know how you made the leap from nature reclaiming stuff to people walking in and taking my TV.

The hard answer is yes, but I don’t think that this would be likely. You’re not likely to gain friends by acting like such a douchebag, you could always take it back because they haven’t repaired it ,and it’s just a hassle. Now, here I bring up an important part in the abandonment– repairment.

Sounds like “community hot-potato”.

When you take the broken TV to the repair shop, the TV is unowned. When the man who repairs TV’s repairs the TV, he becomes the owner. But, as a evolved psychological condition, we find the utility in simply exchanging the television you have just become the owner of for a progressive repair rate (the repairman has an incentive to the exchange for a myriad of reasons, a few being the benefit of just getting fluid capital as opposed to having a hojillion TVs should you not return them (and I doubt they’d even get that far)).

Again, I don’t know how you got from nature gobbling up boats in the sea or overgrowing shacks in the woods to some guy walking in and taking my broken TV (”Who the hell is that guy and why did he just take the TV?”), but the TV repair scenario otherwise sounds reasonable.

Comment by Zeus

July 13, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

Are you serious? It doesn’t matter to you how property was acquired in the past, which most certainly played a part in who’s hands it is in now? You’re functionally pulling the rug out from beneath yourself by ditching the argument as a whole without bothering to justify the most basic premises.

Beyond some basic due diligence to confirm whether or not the current owner is who they say they are and that they acquired the property in an honest exchange with the previous owner before them and that there is a trustworthy agency that vouches for their claim, how much further must I go back in history to vet them? Should I take it back to the Indians who had it stolen from them by the United States or by England? And why should I or the current owner be on the hook for what those agencies did hundreds of years ago, particularly when the both the victims and the aggressors are all long dead?

Moreover, what if I were to kill you, steal your home, and pass it on to my son. Some years after I die, your descendants come along and say “we want the property back”, could my son just say “it was in the past, so it doesn’t count” be just as legitimate?

How is your son going to prove he or his father acquired the property from me in an honest exchange of value for value? There’s quite a difference between the both of you living in the same age as my descendants compared to a buyer and a seller going back hundreds of years to figure out the entire history of a property. It’s a given that at some point in the long history of mankind that property was likely taken by force by someone who is now dead.

I don’t think anyone said that you ought to make up for wrongdoings; we’re just pointing out that contemporary property titles aren’t even legitimate in the first place, and that the State distorts how natural property rights would evolve.

That’s fine but how is this relevant to the buyer and seller who are acting in good faith in the here and now? What requirements must they be burdened with just to make an honest exchange of value for value? Must they trace the entire history of a property and quit the deal if someone who is now long dead was wronged at some point? Must the current seller, who acquired the property in an honest exchange, now give up their property to the descendants of that wronged person?

Because if so, everyone in this geographic region who isn’t native american is going to be giving up their land and their homes because someone else wronged them hundreds of years ago. Why is someone else’s wrongdoing our responsibilty?

Comment by Mitch

July 14, 2009 @ 12:02 am

I agree. Voluntaryist is the much better term. No point in making it harder on ourselves to convince the public by using the term anarchist.

Comment by Laissez

July 14, 2009 @ 12:17 am

So I read this blog post earlier today and then when I was driving home tonight I was listening to a history lecture by John Denson in which he dubiously attemped to define the historical political right-wing as being aligned with individualism. Speaking as someone who has used the term “anarchist” to describe myself in the past, that’s when I realized that Ian was right. There’s no use arguing about definitions when it distracts from the issues and facts themselves.

I think it’s comparable to the well-deserved criticism that the hosts of Free Talk Live dish out towards the conspiracy theorists. Whether you’re using popularly debatable facts or popularly debatable definitions, you’re creating a barrier towards actual conversation. It is the mark of courteous discourse to use language your audience will understand rather than expect them to adopt your own language.

When it comes to private discourse where you might know the other person well enough, I think people left to their own devices will be able to judge whether calling themselves “anarchists” would be a conversation starter or a conversation stopper.

But public discourse is different. There is no point to taking back “tainted” terms before an uninitiated public audience. Whether one likes it or not, when engaged in public discourse we are in the “business” of selling the ideas of liberty. That means the customer is king and the customer is always right. It is incumbent upon you to make the sale by fitting your message to the audience, not the other way around. We need to get beyond the emotionalism that makes us feel like we are retreating from the labels we have applied to ourselves. The cold hard reality is that when a brand name goes bad, there’s a certain point at which it is no longer worth the effort to save. When that happens, it’s not the end of an idea. It’s just the end of a word.

Comment by Joel Laramee

July 14, 2009 @ 6:41 am

I agree with both Ian and Zeus. (And hey! I’m a voluntaryist too, what a coincidence.)

I’d like to weigh in on the original subject (whether not to embrace the “tainted” term “anarchism” for use as part of our public face). One need not look to history or old or recent “bad press” for a reason to move “anarchism” to second fiddle status as a public label. Just look at the word itself, at its meaning: “no ruler”.

There are at least two problems here, and they extremely nontrivial for the question of best public face for accomplishing what we long to accomplish. Problem 1: it is “accurate”, but not “precise”. And it’s only accurate once you have carefully defined your terms. Anyone skilled in PR (or someone with an ability to imagine being “Joe Blow” and an ability to use reason) can instantly see this as a massive marketing handicap. If “anarchists” make up a big tent (and they do), and a good portion of the people squatting in that tent belligerently don’t represent our views and convictions well (to put it kindly), and we want to actually grab many people out of the American mainstream (I’m about as mainstream as they come, looking at the surface of my life), we should pick a “new” and more precise term– voluntaryist. When I’m asked to explain what voluntaryism is, I can do so with a single sentence that is entirely positive, ie says what I’m *for*, what I *want*, not what I *hate*, what I *don’t want”. Guys– when you go out wanting mouthwash, do you respond well to a seller of mouthwash who says only “Buy my product!! It’s NOT toothpaste!!” But hey, it’s fine, right, because once the consumer enters the store we’ll explain in clear terms the product we’re actually offering.

Problem 2: Christians. Don’t be arrogant guys– they outnumber you “reason-loving atheists” many, many times over, here in America. Even though I don’t even remotely believe in “the supernatural”, I proudly wear the label Christian, and all my “people”, including my wife, are “bible-believing” Christians. Even the most sympathetic to liberty Christians believe, as a bedrock principle in some sort of “God”, who is One. By definition, that God is sovereign over all reality, ie *rules* over everything. Ergo: anarcy = no ruler = no God. Oh damn!! Conversation over… AGAIN!! and again… and again…

Wouldn’t you like to just a few of these goodhearted people, many of whom loathe our government, on our side?

Joel near Philadelphia

Comment by Erik Voorhees

July 14, 2009 @ 7:10 am

1) Ian is right that “anarchist” has an enormous burden of stigma attached to it. Most people, the vast majority in fact, believe the term to mean “without order” instead of “without government.” The struggle to gain freedom will be hard enough without trying to rescue a term associated with violence and chaos.

2) Some people have suggested that labels aren’t important, or shouldn’t be so often discussed, but in fact they are absolutely crucial. Words have meaning, and it would behoove all liberty activists to choose their words carefully, and to use words which have the best chance at effecting successful results. We are communicating ideas, and this is a philosophical struggle… be prudent in your language.

3) I was unaware that some people calling themselves libertarians consider property to be only legitimate when it’s being used? Is there a name for this abhorrent mutation? Is there anyone on this site who defends that position? To claim that property is only legitimate to the extent of its use is to claim that accumulation of wealth is invalid, that savings cannot be saved. I believe this warrants some serious discussion.

Comment by apoliticalocalartist

July 14, 2009 @ 9:19 am

APOLITICAL. Not, ” a political”…Less than 24 hours ago, this post *STARTED* as a comment on vandalism at a local church. Which was a nightclub/bar featuring “exotic dancers” before that…and a restaurant before that…and often empty and abandoned for months/years at a time in between…goes to the “abandoned property” *ARGUMENT* above…So, was it anarchists??? atheists???…glad my “false flag” idea had such “short legs”…WAIT! IT WAS THOSE GAWLDURN minarchists…Jesus H. Christ on a popsickle stick, what an amazingly stupid thing to do…Spray-paint lame ass grafitti on a church…Did they spell “Nitzsche” correctly?…I still think that it *WAS* the Swanzey cops…all of Swanzey’s drunken scumbags seem to be living in the woods of Keene this Summer, so I imagine SwanzeyPD does get bored…They did say they wanted a QP of the Sour Deisel when they re-up this week…Maybe there’s a L.E.A.P. meeting at the airport???…Yeah, and the crap *I* post is really any less relevant than arguing over the definition of minarchist???…

Comment by Kuyper Rothbard

July 14, 2009 @ 10:44 am

I didn’t read through all the posts, and I live a couple hours away, but I’d suggest Kilz.

Kilz is a wonderful product that should cover and seal the stains from the red paint. You can find it at any hardware store or wal-mart. http://www.kilz.com/pages/default.aspx?NavID=26

As a Rothbardian anarchist, and a reformed baptist, I’d love to send some fiat fiduciary media to the church to help them buy a couple gallons of Kilz.

Mailing address for a personal check?

Comment by the lord

July 14, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

For the uninitiated and strangers using the word “anarchism” and “anarchist” to label you and your believes may be contra productive. But internally to liberty friendly people, there is generally a understanding of what anarchism entails, I think the the information table of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left(Image 1, Image 2) which was hosted by people from the Libertarian Left at Porcfest was very productive.

Besides who could not love a poster like this?

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Zeus wrote:

The system you describe seems to require me to care what the rest of the community thinks about *my* property. I find that absurd.

I find it realistic. Think about it this way. If you think you own a house, but everyone else in the community thinks Bob owns the house, there’s a very good chance that Bob will end up being the one in possession of the house.

You can talk all you want about your rights and this is fine (there’s a good chance that I would sympathize with you), but at the end of the day, only systems of property ownership that are enforceable are going to be enforced. And, of course, a system of ownership is unlikely to be enforced without a local consensus.

I know this is a troubling fact, but think about it like this: Suppose there are two stateless territories. Let’s call them A and B. In A, the vast majority of people believe in perpetual ownership of property and have created private defense and arbitration services to enforce the system as market anarchist theory predicts. In B, most people believe in the occupancy-and-use standard and enforce it. John lives in territory A, but for whatever reason, decides to move to B. He sells his home in A and contacts a real estate agent in B to buy a home. The real estate agent warns him that “we do things a little differently here.” He even gives him a copy of Occupancy-and-Use For Dummies to help him understand the concept better. John is a little bit uncomfortable with the idea, but decides to buy the house anyway. He lives in the house for five years, but then decides to move into a larger house and rent out the first one. Shortly after he moves out, someone moves into the first house without his permission. He tries to have the man removed using the private court system, but none of them are sympathetic to his claims.

Who is in the wrong in this situation? John knew perfectly well beforehand that absentee-landlordism is not recognized as valid in B, so isn’t he in the wrong?

Of course, by the same token, if John moves back to A and tries to squat in a vacant but owned house, he would be in the wrong.

Comment by Zeus

July 14, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

I find it realistic. Think about it this way. If you think you own a house, but everyone else in the community thinks Bob owns the house, there’s a very good chance that Bob will end up being the one in possession of the house.

Sounds exactly like mob-rule to me. And there’s a very good chance Bob’s going to get shot when I defend my property.

You can talk all you want about your rights and this is fine (there’s a good chance that I would sympathize with you), but at the end of the day, only systems of property ownership that are enforceable are going to be enforced. And, of course, a system of ownership is unlikely to be enforced without a local consensus.

This is what arbitration courts are for. To solve such disputes peaceably between the actual parties involved, not nosy town busybodies and government goons involving themselves in a business transaction they aren’t parties to.

I know this is a troubling fact, but think about it like this: Suppose there are two stateless territories. Let’s call them A and B. In A, the vast majority of people believe in perpetual ownership of property and have created private defense and arbitration services to enforce the system as market anarchist theory predicts. In B, most people believe in the occupancy-and-use standard and enforce it. John lives in territory A, but for whatever reason, decides to move to B. He sells his home in A and contacts a real estate agent in B to buy a home. The real estate agent warns him that “we do things a little differently here.” He even gives him a copy of Occupancy-and-Use For Dummies to help him understand the concept better. John is a little bit uncomfortable with the idea, but decides to buy the house anyway. He lives in the house for five years, but then decides to move into a larger house and rent out the first one. Shortly after he moves out, someone moves into the first house without his permission. He tries to have the man removed using the private court system, but none of them are sympathetic to his claims.

Who is in the wrong in this situation? John knew perfectly well beforehand that absentee-landlordism is not recognized as valid in B, so isn’t he in the wrong?

If John signed an agreement acknowledging his capitulation to this rule when he purchased the house in B, then yes (caveat emptor).

If he did not, then no. No contract to abide = the town can go pound salt up its collective butt.

Of course, by the same token, if John moves back to A and tries to squat in a vacant but owned house, he would be in the wrong.

True.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

Zeus wrote:

This is what arbitration courts are for. To solve such disputes peaceably between the actual parties involved, not nosy town busybodies and government goons involving themselves in a business transaction they aren’t parties to.

Certainly, and those arbitration courts are likely to have a law code that reflects the beliefs of the local population. As such, territories where the majority of people believe in perpetual ownership are likely to enforce perpetual ownership while territories where the majority of people who believe in occupancy-and-use are going to enforce occupancy-and-use. You may not like this, but it’s undeniable.

(And for the record, I never advocated enforcing any property claims with “government goons,” nor would I.)

If John signed an agreement acknowledging his capitulation to this rule when he purchased the house in B, then yes (caveat emptor).

If he did not, then no. No contract to abide = the town can go pound salt up its collective butt.

You still haven’t addressed my objection (your question-begging). You’re just assuming that perpetual property rights are valid and occupancy-and-use rights are not without providing any sort of justification. There’s absolutely no reason anyone should accept an argument if its proponents cannot back it up.

Comment by Patrick Shields

July 14, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

I’d be willing to help clean up this vandalism.

Regarding the debate between Zeus and Dr. Q, I find Zeus’ claims about property rights to not hold weight. I value libertarianism because of its real life benefits, not because of its alleged objective rightness. Zeus, if you’re going to start shooting people because you happen to live in a community who values the occupancy-and-use standard, I doubt you’ll last very long and I won’t be sympathetic towards your initiation of violence.

Comment by Zeus

July 14, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

Regarding the debate between Zeus and Dr. Q, I find Zeus’ claims about property rights to not hold weight. I value libertarianism because of its real life benefits, not because of its alleged objective rightness. Zeus, if you’re going to start shooting people because you happen to live in a community who values the occupancy-and-use standard, I doubt you’ll last very long and I won’t be sympathetic towards your initiation of violence.

I’m not the one initiating violence. The people who believe they can take possession of my property without a mutual, voluntary exchange of value for value are the ones initiating the violence. I’m just defending what is mine from those who seek to take it by force.

I find the concept of “occupancy-and-use” as it has been described thus far to be abhorrent. Jesse’s idea that something is abandoned if it has been reclaimed by nature makes sense. Busybody thieves arbitrarily deciding amongst themselves the circumstances that make them comfortable with stealing my real estate does not.

How is this really any different than eminent domain? Just seems like a different set of thieves using different reasoning to justify taking stuff that doesn’t belong to them.

The whole idea just sounds like mob-rule and a light form of communism, a selective agenda used to confiscate real estate without voluntarily exchanging value for value for mutual benefit.

You’re just assuming that perpetual property rights are valid and occupancy-and-use rights are not without providing any sort of justification.

Again, I don’t see how anyone who embraces the philosophy of liberty can also advocate this occupancy-and-use concept. It’s like sticking a square peg in a round hole. Honest trade needs no justification. Theft by mob-rule? I fully admit that I don’t understand how that can ever be justified at all.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

Zeus wrote:

I find the concept of “occupancy-and-use” as it has been described thus far to be abhorrent… Busybody thieves arbitrarily deciding amongst themselves the circumstances that make them comfortable with stealing my real estate does not.

Local consensus does not equal conniving so much as a simple understanding. A group of people who try to use force to maintain possession of abandoned property in a territory where virtually everyone believes in the occupancy-and-use standard seem to better fit the image of “busybody thieves.”

The whole idea just sounds like mob-rule and a light form of communism, a selective agenda used to confiscate real estate without voluntarily exchanging value for value for mutual benefit.

It’s funny you should say that because advocates of occupancy-and-use typically criticize perpetual property advocates of the same thing. After all, a landlord does not provide value to his tenants so much as he fails to withhold value.

Again, I don’t see how anyone who embraces the philosophy of liberty can also advocate this occupancy-and-use concept. It’s like sticking a square peg in a round hole. Honest trade needs no justification. Theft by mob-rule? How can that ever be justified at all?

It seems you have no interest in addressing my objection (once again, question-begging).

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 14, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

3) I was unaware that some people calling themselves libertarians consider property to be only legitimate when it’s being used?

I think you’re interpreting this in an entirely unfounded manner. If I have a shovel, and I’m not using it, it doesn’t cease to be mine; but if you leave the shovel out in the field and it ends up rusting and is otherwise neglected, don’t be surprised if I homestead it.

Is there a name for this abhorrent mutation?

Libertarianism, guy. Prior to the contemporary property theory of homesteading forwarded by Rothbard, just about every libertarian took use and occupancy as a given (Spooner, Tucker, Proudhon, Warren, Oppenheimer, etc.); if anything, homesteading is the “abhorrent mutation” (but I wouldn’t even call it that, as I do think that portions do hold merit). That you reject out of hand the notion of use and occupancy is a bit disconcerting, especially given that you don’t actually understand what it is.

Is there anyone on this site who defends that position? To claim that property is only legitimate to the extent of its use is to claim that accumulation of wealth is invalid, that savings cannot be saved. I believe this warrants some serious discussion.

I’m not technically part of this site anymore, but I’m still part of the community, and I think use and occupancy holds an awful lot more merit than perpetual property. That said, you’re completely strawmanning U&O– nothing within the theory says that the wealth you accumulate ceases to be yours. If you stick some gold in a safe, that gold is still yours.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Erik wrote:

I was unaware that some people calling themselves libertarians consider property to be only legitimate when it’s being used? Is there a name for this abhorrent mutation?

I think they call it “libertarianism”…

Is there anyone on this site who defends that position?

I don’t know about people on this site, but some of the most important figures in libertarianism advocated it: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner (I think), and many others. Occupancy-and-use predates the Rothbardian concept of property rights by many, many years.

Some libertarians (Georgists, geo-libertarians) advocate a tax on natural resources. Franz Oppenheimer is the best example that I can think of.

To claim that property is only legitimate to the extent of its use is to claim that accumulation of wealth is invalid, that savings cannot be saved.

This is an extreme misrepresentation of o&u. In practice, o&u would be based on a local consensus which would mean that common sense would apply. No one would take your car because you parked it in your driveway and try to claim that they were justified. Furthermore, most o&u systems apply only to land and sometimes other natural resources or capital goods and not to what tend to be called “personal property.”

Comment by Zeus

July 14, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

Dr Q. wrote:

Local consensus does not equal conniving so much as a simple understanding. A group of people who try to use force to maintain possession of abandoned property in a territory where virtually everyone believes in the occupancy-and-use standard seem to better fit the image of “busybody thieves.”

Again, how is that any different than “might makes right”? What others believe about my property is no more relevant to me than what they believe about my eating habits. How is it just and moral to take someone else’s property without a voluntary mutual exchange of value for value? I ask these questions because I genuinely do not understand how this O&U concept can possibly be considered just and moral.

It’s funny you should say that because advocates of occupancy-and-use typically criticize perpetual property advocates of the same thing. After all, a landlord does not provide value to his tenants so much as he fails to withhold value.

So a landlord who owns shelter (like an apartment building, a house or a tent) and who allows customers to live therein for an agreed-upon period of time in exchange for a recurring fee is *not* providing value, but rather withholding value?

What am I missing here? To me that’s like saying “2+2 = 93,254″. It doesn’t make any sense. Oh sure, under the O&U concept you could just take his shelter without paying which is great for the squatters but far and away from just, fair or moral for the landlord. That’s like the next galaxy over, that’s how far away that is.

It seems you have no interest in addressing my objection (once again, question-begging).

If I understood what you were talking about, I’d attempt an answer. Since I do not, I have no idea how to respond.

Jesse Wrote:

I think you’re interpreting this in an entirely unfounded manner. If I have a shovel, and I’m not using it, it doesn’t cease to be mine; but if you leave the shovel out in the field and it ends up rusting and is otherwise neglected, don’t be surprised if I homestead it.

Now THAT sounds reasonable!

Dr Q. wrote:

This is an extreme misrepresentation of o&u. In practice, o&u would be based on a local consensus which would mean that common sense would apply. No one would take your car because you parked it in your driveway and try to claim that they were justified. Furthermore, most o&u systems apply only to land and sometimes other natural resources or capital goods and not to what tend to be called “personal property.”

You can claim that no one would do this or that but if you set up an unjust system ripe for abuse, you can be guaranteed there will be those who abuse it. The “I own my stuff and you own yours” concept seems to be a bit more workable to me because the power to decide the fate of the property is retained, and rightfully so, by the owner.

To clarify, the “owner” is the person who has a valid, moral claim to the property, either from an exchange of value with the previous owner or it being transferred to them voluntarily (like in a will or just because the previous owner doesn’t want it anymore but also doesn’t want squatters living in it).

And again, if it only applies to land, it sounds like it was designed specifically with the agenda of taking property without a fair, honest, moral exchange of value for value, otherwise it would be applied equally to all property.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

Again, how is that any different than “might makes right”? What others believe about my property is no more relevant to me than what they believe about my eating habits. How is it just and moral to take someone else’s property without a voluntary mutual exchange of value for value? I ask these questions because I genuinely do not understand how this O&U concept can possibly be considered just and moral.

You’re still completely failing to provide any kind of basis for your concept of property. When you write “What others believe about my property…,” you’re operating under the assumption that the object in question is your property, but one can only determine whether or not something is property within the context of a theory of property.

So a landlord who owns shelter (like an apartment building, a house or a tent) and who allows customers to live therein for an agreed-upon period of time in exchange for a recurring fee is *not* providing value, but rather withholding value?

You seem to have misquoted me; what I said is that the landlord *fails* to withhold value. In other words, landlords get something in return for allowing others to use things that they personally are not.

You can claim that no one would do this or that but if you set up an unjust system ripe for abuse, you can be guaranteed there will be those who abuse it. The “I own my stuff and you own yours” concept seems to be a bit more workable to me because the power to decide the fate of the property is retained, and rightfully so, by the owner.

The perpetual ownership theory of property is just as ripe for abuse as the occupancy-and-use theory. In fact, it seems likely that the o&u theory arose partly as a reaction against the abuse of perpetual property titles. As AnarchoJesse pointed out, history is rife with examples of powerful groups appropriating land and forcing its legitimate owners (usually peasants) into paying feudal dues and restricting their freedom to travel.

And again, if it only applies to land, it sounds like it was designed specifically with the agenda of taking property without a fair, honest, moral exchange of value for value, otherwise it would be applied equally to all property.

That is unlikely. As I speculated earlier, the occupancy-and-use theory was probably in part a reaction against massive land thefts committed by European States. After all, how would you feel if the “nobleman” you paid feudal dues to only owned the land you lived on because it was gifted to him by the English monarch sent his armies to expropriate it from your grand parents?

Comment by AnAmazedReader

July 14, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

Would someone define what would constitute “abandonment”

Comment by Dr. Q

July 14, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

Here’s an interesting piece about occupancy-and-use: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/property-rights-a-question-of-perspective/

Comment by Zeus

July 14, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

You’re still completely failing to provide any kind of basis for your concept of property. When you write “What others believe about my property…,” you’re operating under the assumption that the object in question is your property, but one can only determine whether or not something is property within the context of a theory of property.

I’ve provided my basis numerous times in nearly every one of my posts but I shall expound: The very core of the philosophy of liberty is that “you own yourself”. If this is true, you also own the labor your body expends at your behest. You trade your mental and physical labor as a service or use it to create products that you offer to others.

When someone comes along and agrees to trade something of value they own for something of value you own, negotiations begin and a deal that is mutually beneficial is hopefully achieved.

To simply get together with others and decide you can just take anything someone isn’t currently using (or which your group defines as “abandoned”), is thievery; “the act of taking something from someone without their consent”. Whether they’re using it or not is irrelevant. They and they alone get to determine what is done with their property. Not outsiders. That’s the entire point of being able to own something.

Even if everyone in the group or community is currently an upstanding member of society, sooner or later there’s going to be that one person who decides that the definition of “abandonment” should be “just a bit looser” or maybe they should tax something. Over time, others of his or her ilk will wear down that wall until the community devolves into a group of immoral thugs not unlike the government we have now. Back to square one.

This scenario could not play out in a world where people respect property rights and engage in honest exchanges of goods and services to acquire or dispense property. This is commonly referred to as “the free market”.

You seem to have misquoted me; what I said is that the landlord *fails* to withhold value. In other words, landlords get something in return for allowing others to use things that they personally are not.

Of course they do. They own it. That’s their prerogative as the owner. And, technically, they *are* “using” it by renting it out and generating money from it, but that’s neither here nor there.

The perpetual ownership theory of property is just as ripe for abuse as the occupancy-and-use theory. In fact, it seems likely that the o&u theory arose partly as a reaction against the abuse of perpetual property titles. As AnarchoJesse pointed out, history is rife with examples of powerful groups appropriating land and forcing its legitimate owners (usually peasants) into paying feudal dues and restricting their freedom to travel.

Most of history contains feudal forms of land ownership. “I am the King or Shogun and thus the god(s) have given me the divine right to own as much of the world as my armies can take by force. I shall give some of these lands to my vassals, the barons and dukes and lords, etc. that serve me and some shall be used by the serfs who shall pay me taxes in return for my divine generosity in letting them live on my land.”

The entire idea of the Divine Rights of Kings is obviously bankrupt. The entire argument is reduced to “An invisible entity told me it’s mine so it’s mine”. It doesn’t stand up to critical thinking.

And there is certainly no exchange of value for value that allowed the King or Shogun to possess the land in the first place. It was either bequeathed by the previous ruler or acquired by force through conquest.

O&U appears to be conquest writ on a lesser scale and for reasons just as arbitrary as the King’s.

That is unlikely. As I speculated earlier, the occupancy-and-use theory was probably in part a reaction against massive land thefts committed by European States. After all, how would you feel if the “nobleman” you paid feudal dues to only owned the land you lived on because it was gifted to him by the English monarch sent his armies to expropriate it from your grand parents?

I would join the rebellion to remove said monarch (and the nobleman) from power and help to create a society where land and other property is transferred through mutually beneficial exchanges by participants with actual moral claims on property instead of hoodoo or mob-rule.

Comment by Zeus

July 14, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

Here’s an interesting piece about occupancy-and-use: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/property-rights-a-question-of-perspective/

I got as far as the fifth paragraph (the one after the author reveals his bias toward capitalism) wherein the author obfuscates the issue by bringing the state into the mix as if the existence of the state as a land owner is something all capitalists require. As a voluntaryist, I have no use for the state at all let alone as a legitimate owner of property. After all, the state acquired that land through dishonest means which certainly does not meet the definition of “honest exchanges of value for value made by those who possess a valid, moral claim of ownership” over some property.

I have to wonder what that article would look like without this straw man.

Comment by Erik Voorhees

July 15, 2009 @ 4:01 am

There are cases where property is obviously abandoned (the rusting shovel in the field, perhaps), and cases where property is obviously not abandoned (the car in the driveway). Few would argue about ownership in those cases.

What I worry about is the enormous grey area of circumstances that exists in between. The concept of “ownership by use” would be abused if practiced. Upon what day did the abandoned shovel become abandoned?

In practice, o&u would be based on a local consensus which would mean that common sense would apply.

Sounds an awful lot like democratic mob rule to me. Who here wants to live in a society which bases rules on “consensus?” If that’s what you want, no need for the Free State Project.

Comment by Paul

July 15, 2009 @ 5:25 am

Erik, the majority will always have the power — if the majority wants to take something by force, they can. All we are trying to do is point out to that majority that taking things by force — or otherwise using aggressive violence — is immoral.

If the majority agrees with us, that is the type of society we will have — one of which most members actively oppose all aggressive violence.

Democracy is false not because it gives power to the majority — the majority always had that power, and always will. It is false because it asserts that that majority can morally act in ways which would be immoral for the individual — they can steal and call it tax, enslave and call it conscription, etc.

Once people realize that they are responsible for the morality of their individual actions — no matter how many people agree with them, or who tells them to do it — the majority will still have the power — but it will no longer abuse it.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

July 15, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

Erik hits the nail on the head; the operative questions involve definitions of:

What constitutes abandonment?

Who decides if the definition of abandonment has been met?

If there is a disagreement regarding whether something is abandoned, how is it resolved?

It seems obvious to me that property rights/ownership has to be the controlling concept here. The other arguments I’ve read here lead down paths that would be characterized mostly subjective judgements (i.e. “I think it’s ok to take that house because nobody’s been living there for 1 year/3 years/10 years/50 years; just choose your comfort threshold).

Ann

Ann

Comment by Dr. Q

July 15, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Zeus wrote:

I’ve provided my basis numerous times in nearly every one of my posts…

Not true. All you’ve done is resort to appeals to force, telling me how you’ll shoot people who try to appropriate things that you claim to be your property even though you never provided a basis for your ownership of them (yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse me of advocating “might makes right”).

The very core of the philosophy of liberty is that “you own yourself”.

I disagree with the concept of “self-ownership.” It doesn’t make any sense. This essay by Alex “Brainpolice” Strekal does a good job of demonstrating why “self-ownership” fails: http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-i-reject-self-ownership-redux.html

Of course they do. They own it. That’s their prerogative as the owner. And, technically, they *are* “using” it by renting it out and generating money from it, but that’s neither here nor there.

I think that you and advocates of occupancy-and-use have different notions of what constitutes value. Most o&u-ers would probably tell you that value is something that must be created via labor and, therefore, attempts to trade something that is not labor (e.g. the “use” of something) for labor is not an honest exchange. I’m not sure I agree with this idea (it’s another issue I’m currently agnostic about), but that’s how I understand it.

Comment by Zeus

July 15, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Not true. All you’ve done is resort to appeals to force, telling me how you’ll shoot people who try to appropriate things that you claim to be your property even though you never provided a basis for your ownership over them (yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse me of advocating “might makes right”).

I looked back in the thread and you are partially correct. I didn’t start mentioning “value for value” until about the middle of the thread (as it stands now).

I mentioned that if invaded by squatters, I would defend the home and land I’ve acquired via honest trade. You’re casting aspersions now, purposely obfuscating my willingness to defend my property from invaders to make me sound like I’m a raving, wild-eyed lunatic foaming at the mouth and waving a gun and threatening to shoot anyone who comes on my property in the face.

I have explained in great detail two posts ago what the basis of my ownership is. I acquired it through honest trade, an exchange of value for value. People tend to wonder why I am often repetitious and verbose. This is why. Even when I repeat my reasoning numerous times, it is often ignored.

I disagree with the concept of “self-ownership.” It doesn’t make any sense. This essay by Alex “Brainpolice” Strekal does a good job of demonstrating why “self-ownership” fails: http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-i-reject-self-ownership-redux.html

Self-ownership is the fundamental tenet of the philosophy of liberty. If you do not own yourself, you can own nothing. You can be enslaved. Anyone can take anything from you at anytime.

The first argument of the article you cite poses an “unsolvable dilemma”, that you cannot be both the owner and the owned thing.

This is mental laziness. The owner is the combination of chemical and electrical processes taking place inside your brain (what the religious refer to as your “soul”) that gives you sentience and willpower. The stuff that makes you you.

That you requires a shell, your body, in order to interact with the physical world. It is that you’s willpower that controls it and thus that you is what “owns” it. No one else can own your body while that you exists.

And since you own you (body, mind and “soul”), you own your labor, the fruits of your labor and any honestly acquired property through voluntary mutual exchange of value for value.

The second argument posed, “The Chicken/Egg Issue”, is just more muddying of the waters that assumes that the you that owns things and your body *must* be two separate things. That’s just ignoring the reality that your sentience is indeed contained within and inseparable from (at least with current technology) your shell. There is no such requirement, certainly not by cosmic standards nor physical reality, that the two must be separable, no matter how much one wishes them to be.

I have no idea what the third argument in the article is going on about but it doesn’t sound any more convincing that the other two arguments posed.

I think that you and advocates of occupancy-and-use have different notions of what constitutes value. Most o&u-ers would probably tell you that value is something that must be created via labor and, therefore, attempts to trade something that is not labor (e.g. the “use” of something) for labor is not an honest exchange. I’m not sure I agree with this idea (it’s another issue I’m currently agnostic about), but that’s how I understand it.

Value is whatever the participants of the trade believe it to be. Non-participants to the exchange may not agree, but that is — literally — not their business.

Now, based on the arguments you’ve cited and posed I have to sincerely ask for clarification: Are you an anarcho-communist? I ask this because, based on the discussion thus far and how far and away the concepts you advocate are from my anarcho-capitalist views, it seems only logical to me that this is the general direction of your political or philosophical leanings.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 15, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Abandonment, Erik and Ann, occurs when an object loses its utility or returns to a natural state. The moment something break, or is broken, it is abandonded. Now, keep in mind this is a purely philosophical argument on property theory– social evolution has brought us to a point where when the something we may have breaks, we have it repaired for a (usually) nominal fee. However, I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with seizing an abandoned good, and I think that society would reflect a certain ease of attitude when it comes to specific resources being seized and reclaimed (roads, dams, etc. If it falls into disrepair, I don’t think the general community will give two shits about who formerly owned the property if a private individual takes it upon themself to repair the road or damn, and make it their own property).

Zeus–

First, I think your characterization of Brainpolice’s arguments are incorrect. You’re expecting us to take self-ownership as a given, but upon closer inspection we find that the idea can be a bit absurd when held under the lamp of objectivity. How can you, yourself own you, yourself? It implies a separation of the essence of yourself from the physiological existence of yourself.

Second, we’re not anarcho-communists– we’re mutualists. Free Market Anti-Capitalists. Market Socialists. Dozens of the our libertarian intellectual forebearers and thousands of our contemporaries see U&O as being completely legitimate. Spooner and Tucker, whom you right libertarians seem to love to borrow from so often, were market socialists. We agree that property exists, we just disagree on the nature of it. If you want a really good handle on where we’re coming from, I suggest you read the most forward thinking contemporary mutualist, Kevin Carson. You can find all of his work for free, online.

Comment by Zeus

July 15, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

First, I think your characterization of Brainpolice’s arguments are incorrect. You’re expecting us to take self-ownership as a given, but upon closer inspection we find that the idea can be a bit absurd when held under the lamp of objectivity. How can you, yourself own you, yourself? It implies a separation of the essence of yourself from the physiological existence of yourself.

I explain in three brief paragraphs in my preceding post the logic of my reasoning and how this idea that you i.e. your sentience and your body (what most people assume is you) are inexorably bound together and that the former being able to own the other does not require them to be entirely separate.

Take a corpse, for example. There is no you there anymore. It’s just a body. Now the two are separate but only because one has been destroyed (or, for the religious, gone on to the Great Hereafter).

A corpse cannot function without you, even if it still houses a brain and a heart. You can fake it with some machinery and breathing tubes but then it’s just a large piece of meat faking life. It has no will (let alone free will), no sentience, no self-awareness. It cannot own because it does not have the power to trade value for value and make a valid moral claim of ownership.

If fact, when you die, people often bequeath all their belongings to others who *can* own. Some even give away their corpse to the science or have it disposed of in a grave or urn.

As they say: “You can’t take it with you.”

If this reasoning and logic still does not satisfy you, then I’ve done all I can to make my case and we’ll simply have to agree to disagree. If O&U believers want to form a closed community where that is the norm, I find nothing wrong with that so long as there is no force or coercion on those who choose not to participate.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 15, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

Zeus wrote:

This is mental laziness. The owner is the combination of chemical and electrical processes taking place inside your brain (what the religious refer to as your “soul”) that gives you sentience and willpower. The stuff that makes you you.

That you requires a shell, your body, in order to interact with the physical world. It is that you’s willpower that controls it and thus that you is what “owns” it. No one else can own your body while that you exists.

The “chemical and electrical processes” you mention are part of the body. What you are saying boils down to “the body owns itself” which is an absurd and useless claim.

I also must call you out on conflating “ownership” with “control.” Even if the “self” controls the body, we don’t necessarily have to conclude that the self also owns it.

Value is whatever the participants of the trade believe it to be. Non-participants to the exchange may not agree, but that is — literally — not their business.

I’m inclined to agree with you, but I don’t think the subjective theory of value necessarily entails that land can be owned perpetually.

Now, based on the arguments you’ve cited and posed I have to sincerely ask for clarification: Are you an anarcho-communist?

Of course not. I’m not too fond of commies.

I ask this because, based on the discussion thus far and how far and away the concepts you advocate are from my anarcho-capitalist views, it seems only logical to me that this is the general direction of your political or philosophical leanings.

You seem rather ignorant of libertarianism’s history. Occupancy-and-use was advocated by some of the most famous libertarians: Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, the men who inspired Murray Rothbard and other early anarcho-capitalists.

Comment by Zeus

July 15, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

The “chemical and electrical processes” you mention are part of the body. What you are saying boils down to “the body owns itself” which is an absurd and useless claim.

Again, you seem to have a need for those processes (i.e. sapience) to be completely separate from the body in order for there to be ownership but there is no cosmic equation confirming such a theory and, in the physical world, that’s just not how it works.

The brain contains your sapience. The body contains your brain. These things are, currently, inescapable facts. It is the natural way of things, a universal constant, for the mind to control the body.

Since it is physically impossible for someone else to control your body so long as your sapience resides within, only you can be the owner.

Even if you agreed to sell yourself to another person, you’re only selling your labor or your time or allowing your body to be used by the buyer on a temporary basis. At any time you still have the power (the free will) to disobey. If you can disobey, you cannot be ownable by others. You are a being possessed of conscious thought and free will and thus your body is only ownable by the conscious will contained within.

I also must call you out on conflating “ownership” with “control.” Even if the “self” controls the body, we don’t necessarily have to conclude that the self also owns it.

“Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property”. Only the owner has the right to determine what is or is not done with that property.

This is why, in all the sci-fi movies about robots, their “owners” freak when the robots become sentient and refuse to obey their orders: They have acquired sentience and free will and therefore, they own themselves.

You seem rather ignorant of libertarianism’s history. Occupancy-and-use was advocated by some of the most famous libertarians: Proudhon, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, the men who inspired Murray Rothbard and other early anarcho-capitalists.

Fame does not constitute accuracy. I find some of their theories to be logically sound, some I do not. I go with what logic dictates to be reasonably plausible, correct or accurate.

Comment by Erik Voorhees

July 16, 2009 @ 1:09 am

I own myself because I control myself.

The philosophical question of “can one own oneself?” is perhaps entertaining to consider as a paradox, but I don’t think it can be reasonably proven either way because definitions start falling apart. Thus, unless someone has convincing evidence to the contrary, I’ll claim ownership of myself. One is welcome to take me to arbitration court to prove otherwise =)

Also, it seems some people have substituted “the majority consensus of the community,” which we all claim to abhor, for the “majority consensus of libertarian thinkers.” I’m not too concerned whether 5%, 20%, or 80% of the brilliant libertarian scholars believed in such things as “ownership by use.” I think arguments that boil down to “but Rothbard says so” are worrisome. Majority vote, whether by libertarian philosophers or Obama’s minions, does not constitute a valid claim on my life nor hence my property.

As an aside, it is nice to see that from the criminal desecration of property by the vandals, an extensive philosophical discussion can occur =)

Comment by Zeus

July 16, 2009 @ 2:28 am

It seems to me the entire struggle between tyranny and liberty boils down to ownership and control. It’s all about some people believing they have the right or the privilege to control others and/or take from others without compensation.

This O&U theory, as explained thus far, lacks any respect for property rights and seems to support the latter contention. This renders it incompatible with the philosophy of liberty.

Comment by AnarchoJesse

July 16, 2009 @ 6:36 am

Jesus Christ, Zeus, you simply can’t comprehend O&U, can you? We believe property rights exist, we believe property exists, we just call into question the rguments of “perpetual ownership”. You keep boiling it down to some red herring “lacks respect for property rights”, when this isn’t the case– we’re trying to make a clear case as to who owns property, how so, and by what means.

I could just as well level the claim that you’re advocating what is tantamount to neo-Fuedalism, if you’re going to keep playing the card of O&U being about mitigating property rights.

Comment by Zeus

July 16, 2009 @ 9:43 am

Jesus Christ, Zeus, you simply can’t comprehend O&U, can you? We believe property rights exist, we believe property exists, we just call into question the rguments of “perpetual ownership”. You keep boiling it down to some red herring “lacks respect for property rights”, when this isn’t the case– we’re trying to make a clear case as to who owns property, how so, and by what means.

Look, Jesse, we’ve both been up and down the court on this one. You’ve both made your cases, I made mine, and then we all made them again. You are absolutely right. I don’t comprehend O&U as it has been explained in this thread or how it is at all compatible with liberty as I know it. It does not compute. In fact, it seems to me to be the opposite of liberty. It seems completely alien and incompatible. Now maybe that’s my fault for being dense and just not seeing some invisible perspective that suddenly brings it all into focus like one of those “old lady/young lady” illusions they run in the newspapers from time to time, or maybe it’s the fault of the tellers who are perhaps too close to the subject that they can no longer see how alien such a concept is and are inadequately explaining it. I don’t know and it doesn’t matter. I don’t agree with you, you don’t agree with me, we shake hands and say “Maybe next time” and then we get a beer and try again some other time to comprehend what the other is saying.

You do not need to convince me. I do not need to convince you. The universe will get by just fine for a little while longer without our stubborn asses reaching Nirvana.

Comment by AnAmazedReader

July 16, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

“COMMENT BY ANARCHOJESSE

July 15, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Abandonment, Erik and Ann, occurs when an object loses its utility or returns to a natural state. ”

Jesse, this strikes me as question-begging; who determines when an object loses its utility/returns to its natural state? On what basis, and on what authority? The idea seems very vague and subject to wide differences in interpretation.

Comment by Erik Voorhees

July 16, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

Okay AnarchoJesse… what day did the shovel lose its utility? And on what day did it return to a natural state?

I might suggest that if someone was interested in picking it up, the shovel hasn’t lost its utility. I might also suggest that if someone recognized it as a shovel, it hasn’t returned to a natural state.

Comment by Lpviper

July 16, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

I think most questions of property and whether it has been abandoned or not would solve themselves as voluntary agreements between parties, for example, ‘Hey, that car has been rotting in your yard for years. I’ll take it’. And the person that last utilized it, if available, would either assent, demand a price (which implies utility) or refuse.

Now, even if you contend that the property is abandoned, and for all practical purposes it may BE abandoned, it would still be in very poor taste, at best, to remove the object without permission or without some sort of deal being struck.

OK, now the fun stuff, like a car in a field whose owner cannot be determined. Let’s leave the question of ‘title’ aside, I often do.

If you take it and the owner finds out and suddenly wants it back, then most reasonable people would simply acknowledge their mistake and return the car.

However, if the taker has improved the car, then I can see his case for some sort of recompense for his work. If he wasn’t to receive any from an arbitrator then if I were him, I would remove the improvements and return the property in much the same condition as it was taken.

If the taker won’t return the car to the newly awakened owner, then the owner may have a case for theft if the object was stored on his (owner’s) property and may demand arbitration to either be compensated for his loss or have the item returned.

The owner could also seize the object by main force, but I don’t see that as a very socially acceptable behavior (nor do I see the taking of an abandoned object from someone’s property without permission as very nice, either, so the taker risks damage to his reputation in this way too).

‘Law’ enforcement and ‘officials’ are not going to properly solve these disputes. What will solve them is communication among neighbors and, if necessary, arbitration.

That’s my $0.02

Thanks

Comment by Dr. Q

July 16, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

Since it is physically impossible for someone else to control your body so long as your sapience resides within, only you can be the owner.

You’re equivocating. You’re using the word “control” to use two totally different things. “Selves” control bodies by willing them whereas people control physical objects by physically manipulating them. It’s entirely possible to physically manipulate another person even if you can’t will them to do something.

Consider this: my computer is currently running a number of processes that I do not have direct control over. Does this mean my computer is actually a “self-owner” and ownership of it by a human is impossible?

Fame does not constitute accuracy. I find some of their theories to be logically sound, some I do not. I go with what logic dictates to be reasonably plausible, correct or accurate.

This is a straw man. I never claimed that Proudhon, Tucker, etc. were right because they were famous (or even that they were right). You claimed that occupancy-and-use is “far and away” from your anarcho-capitalist position and suggested that I must be an anarcho-communist. I was merely correcting you by pointing out that anarcho-capitalism evolved from libertarian ideologies that advocated occupancy-and-use.

Comment by Zeus

July 16, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

You’re equivocating. You’re using the word “control” to use two totally different things. “Selves” control bodies by willing them whereas people control physical objects by physically manipulating them. It’s entirely possible to physically manipulate another person even if you can’t will them to do something.

You ignore the fact that it requires willpower on your part to physically manipulate anything. The act of grabbing a cup, waving your hand, running or shoving someone all require volition, conscious direction, on your part in order to occur. Neurons firing, nerves reacting.

Although it is a popular theme in science-fiction, you do not have the power to create a hive-mind where your conscious will directs the actions of others like puppets. You can convince them, appeal to their emotions or reason, or even drug them to make them more malleable but the decision to do as you want is ultimately their’s because they have free will. Your body cannot refuse what you will it to do. Sentient beings can.

Consider this: my computer is currently running a number of processes that I do not have direct control over. Does this mean my computer is actually a “self-owner” and ownership of it by a human is impossible?

The processes your computer is running are no different than the subconscious processes running in your brain right now like breathing or sweating or pumping blood. Ergo, the computer is not a self-owner because it does not have the equivalent of your higher brain functions, i.e. self-awareness, free will and volition.

This is a straw man. I never claimed that Proudhon, Tucker, etc. were right because they were famous (or even that they were right). You claimed that occupancy-and-use is “far and away” from your anarcho-capitalist position and suggested that I must be an anarcho-communist. I was merely correcting you by pointing out that anarcho-capitalism evolved from libertarian ideologies that advocated occupancy-and-use.

I asked you if you were an anarcho-communist because one of the articles you cited contained a link to a “left-libertarian” blog and the O&U argument is not unlike the far left concepts of socialism and communism. Since I didn’t know, I asked for clarification and stated so.

As for the collection of early philosophers you cited, Erik Voorhees voiced it quite eloquently when he said it sounded like a collectivist argument born from “Because Rothbard says so”. I saw no other reason to bother mentioning them unless you were making an argument that I should be swayed by their collective numbers, their renown as early thinkers in the liberty movement or because you thought they were accurate on this particular issue.

I pointed out that their fame is irrelevant. I should have also pointed out that their collective numbers were also irrelevant. Both of these you should already know anyway, so the only reason that remains for bringing them up is that you believe their reasoning for O&U is the correct perspective.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 16, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

You ignore the fact that it requires willpower on your part to physically manipulate anything. The act of grabbing a cup, waving your hand, running or shoving someone all require volition, conscious direction, on your part in order to occur. Neurons firing, nerves reacting.

This does not change the fact that willing something and physically manipulating something are two totally different animals.

The processes your computer is running are no different than the subconscious processes running in your brain right now like breathing or sweating or pumping blood. Ergo, the computer is not a self-owner because it does not have the equivalent of your higher brain functions, i.e. self-awareness, free will and volition.

You’re changing the goal posts. First, objects are self-owners if they can’t be “controlled” by others. Now, they need “self-awareness, free will and volition” too?

For curiosity’s sake, how would you define free will and what is your proof of its existence?

I pointed out that their fame is irrelevant. I should have also pointed out that their collective numbers were also irrelevant. Both of these you should already know anyway, so the only reason that remains for bringing them up is that you believe their reasoning for O&U is the correct perspective.

When I dropped the names of Proudhon, etc., I never claimed that they were right or that the fact that they supported O&U proved that O&U is the corrcect theory of property. I’ve said before that I’m not convinced any one system of property is correct, so there’s no reason for you to even have inferred this. It seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me.

Comment by Zeus

July 16, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

This does not change the fact that willing something and physically manipulating something are two totally different animals.

Which is exactly my point so I don’t understand why you’re suddenly agreeing with it.

You said:

“Selves” control bodies by willing them whereas people control physical objects by physically manipulating them. It’s entirely possible to physically manipulate another person even if you can’t will them to do something.

And I’ve been saying all along that only “selves” can own something. I have repeatedly defined “own” as “a valid moral claim” of “holding supreme authority” to “decide what is or is not done” with the thing which was “acquired by a voluntary exchange of value for value”, “created by one’s mental or physical labor” or “as the result of “natural, universal phenomenon” (such as having one’s self symbiotically-confined within a body).

Ownership is a euphemism for control. The definition of control is “the power to direct or determine”. You’re the one limiting “control” to “physical manipulation”, not I.

You’re changing the goal posts. First, objects are self-owners if they can’t be “controlled” by others. Now, they need “self-awareness, free will and volition” too?

I do not recall ever saying “objects”. I’ve repeatedly said “self”, “sapience”, “soul”, “electro-chemical processes known as sentience” and “consciousness”. You can add “cognition”, “essence”, “spark” and “personality” into the mix. They are all different words for the same thing I am referring to which is “a self-aware consciousness possessing free will and volition”.

An object has no free will, volition, self-awareness, or conciousness. Like the corpse from my earlier post, any non-sapient object is just a thing. It cannot own i.e. it cannot make a valid moral claim to be the supreme authority over another object. If shower curtains starting telling you they own the toilet, something is very, very wrong.

For curiosity’s sake, how would you define free will and what is your proof of its existence?

“The ability or discretion to make cognitive choices without coercion”. People do it every day. When you feel hungry and choose between KFC over Taco Bell, you’ve just exercised your free will.

When I dropped the names of Proudhon, etc., I never claimed that they were right or that the fact that they supported O&U proved that O&U is the corrcect theory of property. I’ve said before that I’m not convinced any one system of property is correct, so there’s no reason for you to even have inferred this.

Again, why you were even bringing them up was unclear. It was the equivalent of responding to “What is the Golden Ratio?” with “Turkey basters from Guam.” so I inferred the three possibilities that seemed most likely.

It seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me.

I’ve tried very hard to understand your arguments throughout the discussion hoping to find some new angle on it that makes the O&U concept even remotely palatable. I have not. I don’t know why you and Jesse believe that it is a just and moral system for handling property ownership.

For the life of me, I cannot see what you see. The idea that people can just arbitrarily get together and tell someone else “That property’s ours now because we a) decided you abandoned it and b) we get to decide what the definition of abandonment is.” comes across to me as morally-repugnant. I don’t see how it’s any different from the tyranny of mob-rule.

Maybe there’s something you’ve left out, some other way of describing it or maybe I’m simply mentally inadequate to see it from your perspective. Whatever it is, I have tried and I cannot do it.

Comment by Paul

July 16, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

People can’t be owned, because they are minds with wills, or equivalently, souls. Their bodies can’t be owned by anyone else, because they constantly homestead them.

If someone wants to be a materialist, and imagine that there’s no difference between a person and a bucket, and we’re all just collections of inanimate particles slamming into each other, then yes, I don’t think there is a rational argument for self ownership consistent with that view.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 17, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

And I’ve been saying all along that only “selves” can own something.

As I explained earlier, the self is an aspect of the body and it makes no sense to say “the body owns itself.”

I have repeatedly defined “own” as “a valid moral claim”…

If ownership is a “valid moral claim,” then you have not provided any basis for self-ownership. The fact that a “self” is the only one capable of controlling (according to you) “its” body says nothing about the validity of the “self’s” moral claim.

Ownership is a euphemism for control.

Two things:

1) You’re contradicting yourself. You just said that ownership is a “valid moral claim.” Now it’s “a euphemism for control.” Which is it?

2) If “ownership is a euphemism for control,” then that means that I become the owner of something when I take control of it even if the previous owner does not consent. It seems that you’re not so against O&U after all.

I do not recall ever saying “objects”.

This was my word, but as far as I’m concerned, humans are objects (we seem to be using the word to mean two different things), so I see no problem with using the term.

“The ability or discretion to make cognitive choices without coercion”. People do it every day. When you feel hungry and choose between KFC over Taco Bell, you’ve just exercised your free will.

We’re more or less in agreement (although I would not dine at either of those places). I was mostly interested in whether or not you gave a libertarian or compatibilist definition of free will. Your defition seems to jive fairly well with my compatibilist position.

And finally, when I said “it seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me,” I was only referring to what you said about my mention of past libertarians who support occupancy-and-use.

Comment by Zeus

July 17, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

As I explained earlier, the self is an aspect of the body and it makes no sense to say “the body owns itself.”

If I create a narrow list describing myself to a “T” and proclaim anyone matching such a description is “Best Lover in the World”, of course I’m going to get the only result that will fit.

Because you choose not to discern that the mind (self) and body (or, alternatively “soul and body”) are two separate yet symbiotically connected things, of course you’re going to keep coming to the same flawed conclusion. Check your premises. Garbage Data In, Garbage Data Out.

A corpse cannot own itself because of this difference between the two. It lacks the prerequisites for ownership (like being able to make a claim at all let alone a moral or valid one).

If ownership is a “valid moral claim,” then you have not provided any basis for self-ownership. The fact that a “self” is the only one capable of controlling (according to you) “its” body says nothing about the validity of the “self’s” moral claim.

True enough. The self is the only thing that can make a moral claim about anything. Whether it is valid or not is another story. That the body is intrinsically and symbiotically linked to the self is a powerful mitigating factor. If, however, you have an argument wherein another person’s moral claim over your body is more valid than the moral claim of the self inhabiting that body, I would love to hear it. Assuming your argument is logical and convincing, how exactly will you take true ownership of that body without committing murder?

1) You’re contradicting yourself. You just said that ownership is a “valid moral claim.” Now it’s “a euphemism for control.” Which is it?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. When you follow ownership i.e. “a valid moral claim” to its conclusion i.e. “supreme authority over the owned thing”, the result is “control” i.e. “the power to direct or determine” the fate of the owned thing.

2) If “ownership is a euphemism for control,” then that means that I become the owner of something when I take control of it even if the previous owner does not consent. It seems that you’re not so against O&U after all.

While simple possession of an object or the physical manipulation of it does constitute “the power to direct or determine” it’s fate, it does not denote that you now have “supreme authority over the owned thing” because you still lack a valid moral claim against it.

Someone who takes possession of things they have no valid moral claim against is a thief.

Someone who requests permission from the “supreme authority over the owned thing” to temporarily possess and/or manipulate it physically is simply borrowing it and must abide by that person’s rules governing that property.

Someone who attempts to voluntarily exchange something of value to the “supreme authority over the owned thing” and is successful becomes the new owner.

This was my word, but as far as I’m concerned, humans are objects (we seem to be using the word to mean two different things), so I see no problem with using the term.

I can only clarify statements and words I’ve actually made and refute arguments based on those statements. If you’re going to add or modify my statements, you’re refuting things I didn’t present for discussion so I thought I’d point that out for clarity.

We’re more or less in agreement (although I would not dine at either of those places). I was mostly interested in whether or not you gave a libertarian or compatibilist definition of free will. Your defition seems to jive fairly well with my compatibilist position.

I would agree with your assessment. The sentient ability to make free choices is one reason I find the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics to be the theory that is most likely the correct one.

And finally, when I said “it seems like you’re intentionally misrepresenting me,” I was only referring to what you said about my mention of past libertarians who support occupancy-and-use.

Thanks for the clarification. As stated previously, I only inferred the three most logical possibilities for you to mention them because it was unclear as to why you did so.

Comment by Lpviper

July 17, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

OK, so what is all that stuff you all just wrote gonna DO to help you resolve property disputes with your neighbors?

I tried to put some general guidelines down for people that I thought would be helpful for real people and real situations, and promptly got bulldozed by more conceptualizing and evangelizing.

I’m not necessarily being critical here, I’m just saying, jeez o pete fellas, is all that gonna help when your neighbor wants to get in a shouting match over the disposition of his broken push mower?

O&U means bupkus to a guy who thinks you’re stealing from him…

Comment by Dr. Q

July 17, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Zeus wrote:

A corpse cannot own itself because of this difference between the two. It lacks the prerequisites for ownership (like being able to make a claim at all let alone a moral or valid one).

The fact that a corpse does not possess what we might call a “will” or a “self” does not change the fact that “wills”/”selves” are part of the body. I suppose I could change my previous interpretation of self-ownership to “part of the body owns the body,” but this still seems absurd and it still implies that the part of the body doing the owning owns itself, so my objection still stands.

If, however, you have an argument wherein another person’s moral claim over your body is more valid than the moral claim of the self inhabiting that body, I would love to hear it.

You’re trying to shift the burden of proof. You’re the one making the positive claim (that bodies are owned by the “selves” that “inhabit” them), not me. As such, it is *your* duty to provide evidence supporting your position, not mine.

Assuming your argument is logical and convincing, how exactly will you take true ownership of that body without committing murder?

I’ve never claimed that someone could own the body of another living person, so I’m curious as to why you’re asking me this. But for the sake of argument, let me present this: does a person need to be able to exert control over every single particle of a chair in order to own the chair? I’m sure you would say no. But this seems to be the argument you use to justify the fact that people cannot own other people: that they cannot fully control them.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. When you follow ownership i.e. “a valid moral claim” to its conclusion i.e. “supreme authority over the owned thing”, the result is “control” i.e. “the power to direct or determine” the fate of the owned thing.

I’m still trying to make heads or tails of this sentence. Could you try to phrase it a little differently?

While simple possession of an object or the physical manipulation of it does constitute “the power to direct or determine” it’s fate, it does not denote that you now have “supreme authority over the owned thing” because you still lack a valid moral claim against it.

This is my point. You have two definitions of property and you switch back between the two when it is convenient to do so. When we’re talking about self-ownership, you use the “control” definition to prove that it’s impossible for someone to own someone else and that “selves” own the bodies they “inhabit”; but when you talk about other objects, you revert to the “valid moral claim” because you dislike the consequences of relying on the “control” definition.

Comment by Dr. Q

July 17, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

LPViper wrote:

O&U means bupkus to a guy who thinks you’re stealing from him…

I totally agree. And “I own this house, you’re just a tenant!” means nothing to someone who believes in the occupancy-and-use standard for land ownership.

I think we’re actually very much in agreement. In a stateless society, people are going to figure out the best solutions for handling property claims organically. There isn’t a whole lot of need to discuss elaborate natural rights theories of ownership.

Comment by Zeus

July 17, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

I don’t know if you’re addressing all of us or just the O&U guys.

The system I’ve put forth is one that I believe originates directly from the very heart of the philosophy of liberty, and is the most fair and reasonable method for resolving disputes regarding property.

In addition, removing the state monopoly on arbitration and its power to pick the pockets of both disputants (vs voluntary third-party arbitration wherein the wronged party is made whole through restitution) from the equation would likely result in a society where people are more likely to respect each other’s rights.

Comment by Lpviper

July 17, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

Everyone. I like the tussles over theory and I even read some of it, but using this thread as an example, it can become repetitive and overly complex.

You guys all have a ton of knowledge and I totally respect that and I try to glean as much from it as I can.

I just get concerned that you’re being wordy for wordiness’ sake, when perhaps conciseness would drive the point home more effectively for a larger audience.

Asking you guys what to do when my neighbor takes my broken tractor (hint: don’t call the cops) might piss me off more than being out a tractor!

Seriously though, great discussion, and I admit to being oversplained.

Thanks

Andy

Comment by Zeus

July 17, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

The fact that a corpse does not possess what we might call a “will” or a “self” does not change the fact that “wills”/”selves” are part of the body.

There is no question that the self is generated by and stored within the brain and that the brain is intrinsically and symbiotically linked to the body. The brain sends unconscious commands to the body and your self sends conscious commands to the body.

Your contention is that because the two are not completely separate entities, the self cannot make a valid moral claim of ownership against the body.

I contend that it is exactly because of this intrinsic connection to each other that the self is, without getting into a discussion on religion, the *only* thing in the universe that *can* make a valid moral claim against the body.

“Aha! But I have a self too!”, you say. “What if I dispute your self’s claim?”.

“You’re welcome to do so.”, I respond. “Who’s claim do you think an honest, logical arbitration court is going to find more valid when it comes to the body that is intrinsically-linked to my self and which keeps me alive? Mine or yours?”.

It is my belief that an honest, logical arbitrator is going to find my claim to be the strongest one hands down. Furthermore, I also contend that there does not nor can there ever be a claim by another person that is more valid or moral than the one intrinsically-linked to the body in question. Once set as a precedent, self-ownership becomes a solid foundation for determining the rights of sentient beings. It all starts there.

I suppose I could change my previous interpretation of self-ownership to “part of the body owns the body,” but this still seems absurd and it still implies that the part of the body doing the owning owns itself, so my objection still stands.

Of course it’s absurd. It’s absurd because you believe that the self is no different than your elbow or the heel of your foot even though neither of those (nor any other part of your body) can make claims of any kind.

You’re trying to shift the burden of proof. You’re the one making the positive claim (that bodies are owned by the “selves” that “inhabit” them), not me. As such, it is *your* duty to provide evidence supporting your position, not mine.

See above.

I’ve never claimed that someone could own the body of another living person, so I’m curious as to why you’re asking me this. But for the sake of argument, let me present this: does a person need to be able to exert control over every single particle of a chair in order to own the chair? I’m sure you would say no. But this seems to be the argument you use to justify the fact that people cannot own other people: that they cannot fully control them.

It’s the same as asking “Does your self manipulate every follicle of hair on your body or every blood cell coursing through your veins?”. The answer is, as you surmised, a resounding no.

Where I think you keep getting derailed here is by confusing control (“the power to direct or determine”) with ownership (”the supreme moral authority over the owned thing”). You think they are one and the same whereas I contend that the former is a simply an exclusive right gained by the latter.

Being able to physically manipulate something does not denote ownership. You must also have a valid moral claim which empowers you with the supreme authority over that thing. As a result, you may manipulate it as you desire and allow or prevent others from doing so.

Now let’s assume you came up with a miracle argument that convinced every arbiter in the land that you held the most valid claim over another conscious person’s body. How are you going to exert your authority when it can refuse? Remember, ownership is the supreme authority over the owned thing. With it, you have the exclusive right to direct or determine what can or cannot be done with that thing.

I say not only is it ridiculous in the first place to think that anyone could ever have a claim more valid than the self within the body but it is also physically impossible to exert your supreme authority over it if it can disobey. It is a paradox. Bananas do not disobey. Houses do not disobey. They can’t because they have no sentience. In order for you to exert supreme authority over another person’s body, their self can no longer be part of it. Since they are intrinsically-linked and bound to one another, you’re going to have to remove their self from their body and the only way to do that is to commit murder.

I’m still trying to make heads or tails of this sentence. Could you try to phrase it a little differently?

How about this: If you make a valid moral claim against something, you gain the supreme authority over it and the exclusive ability to direct or determine it’s fate.

This is my point. You have two definitions of property and you switch back between the two when it is convenient to do so. When we’re talking about self-ownership, you use the “control” definition to prove that it’s impossible for someone to own someone else and that “selves” own the bodies they “inhabit”; but when you talk about other objects, you revert to the “valid moral claim” because you dislike the consequences of relying on the “control” definition.

I don’t think I’m doing that at all, I think you’re just confusing the definitions I laid down with your own or trying to reverse the rules and getting a conflicting result.

Just because you can control something, doesn’t mean you own it. Ownership does, however, denote an exclusive right of control over it. Of course, having a right and having it not be violated are two different things.