Forums of the Libertarian Left

[Brainpolice]

I'm usually not one to copy-paste messages, let alone quote myself, but for the sake of clarity, THIS is the essence of my problem with anarcho-capitalism (as well as to what seems to be a propertarian interpretation of anarchism without adjectives):

[1:35:13 AM] Brainpolice: Well, what I'm getting at is more like this: according to ancap theory, if someone manages to homestead a large chunk of land, inherit it or buy it up, they can make whatever laws they want and anyone living there that doesn't like it is said to be free simply because they can leave - but this is the exact same thing as the state, only probably smaller scale
[1:35:42 AM] Brainpolice: The principle that people have to obey your rules or leave is still intact
[1:36:00 AM] Brainpolice: As if the option of leaving is sufficient to mean that you're free
[1:36:28 AM] Brainpolice: That's the way that things like "anarcho-monarchy" get justified
[1:36:42 AM] Brainpolice: "Well, if they voluntarily aquired the property..."
[1:36:49 AM] Noor: yeah
[1:36:53 AM] Brainpolice: So, if the property is aquired in the right way, all of a sudden absolute authority is okay
[1:37:41 AM] Noor: And one could argue that if the bureaucrats hire others to develop a plot of land, they've homesteaded it.
[1:37:59 AM] Brainpolice: Right
[1:38:15 AM] Noor: if the State orders land to be developed, then yea.
[1:38:33 AM] Brainpolice: And now anyone that happens to exist in that area, must obey the bureaucrats...and the fact that they can technically "leave" is supposed to mean they're free
[1:39:21 AM] Noor: I had this Misesian guy (who also said he's writing up a massive critique of the FAQ) say that if the State legitimately acquired the land, then yes that would justify the State and everything it does.
[1:39:25 AM] Brainpolice: This is part of why my emphasis has turned to anti-authoritarianism over propertarianism, because propertarianism can justify authoritarianism
[1:39:32 AM] Brainpolice: Right!
[1:39:44 AM] Brainpolice: That's the huge flaw in propertarian definitions of freedom
[1:39:52 AM] Brainpolice: Liberty is subordinated to property
[1:40:01 AM] Brainpolice: Property is the first principle
[1:40:08 AM] Brainpolice: Rather than, at best, a derivative
[1:40:13 AM] Noor: Yeah.
[1:40:31 AM] Noor: Of course they say that liberty comes from self-ownership which comes from property rights...
[1:40:40 AM] Brainpolice: *eyeroll*
[1:40:44 AM] Noor: Yep.
[1:40:59 AM] Brainpolice: Such a fetish for property that even personhood has to be thought of in propertarian terms

[Ceapmann]

If they distinguish it in terms of "legitimacy," they immediately sound like those bratty exile-princes in fantasy stories who are always whining about how they're the true heir and the current king is a usurper.

Even in my ancap days, I always tried to find a distinction based on something other than "legitimacy" - for example, the property owner cannot imprison people on his property, but can only kick them out. Eventually, however, I ran out of excuses.

[lordmetroid]

I never thought or property rights as this in the first place, maybe because I am a swede, killing people for trespassing comes as an absurd idea to me.
Instead I abandoned the rigid property right theory that anarcho-capitalism subscribes during the process of figuring out how people holding different property right theories as their own would get along in society. How an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-communist interact where one party claims he is the ruler of a piece of land while the other party do not recognize that claim. Military defense of said land would be the final solution from an anarcho-capitalist.

I however found that to be unacceptable and realized that the only way for people to be at piece with each other is by agreements.

[Noleaders]

I think the root of this problem is many ancaps seem to have reversed the idea of property rights following from self ownership (lets just assume for now this is a coherent concept) to self ownership following from property rights. Instead of people being able to legitimately own something as an extension of their own individual sovereignty this sovereignty must submit to property rights. Its bizzare logic because they destroy any meaning the concept of "self ownership" had on the grounds of something that they claim follows from that concept.

[praxthym]

[1:35:13 AM] Brainpolice: Well, what I'm getting at is more like this: according to ancap theory, if someone manages to homestead a large chunk of land, inherit it or buy it up, they can make whatever laws they want and anyone living there that doesn't like it is said to be free simply because they can leave - but this is the exact same thing as the state, only probably smaller scale

It's not like they can make laws that break the natural law. It's not like they can just decree that it's ok to murder anyone who steps onto their property and it be considered legally valid.

[1:36:53 AM] Brainpolice: So, if the property is aquired in the right way, all of a sudden absolute authority is okay

See above.

[1:37:41 AM] Noor: And one could argue that if the bureaucrats hire others to develop a plot of land, they've homesteaded it.

If we assume that the bureaucrats are using stolen goods (i.e., tax money they are consuming), then hiring the others to homestead the land isn't going to work. They must have a legitimate claim.

[1:39:25 AM] Brainpolice: This is part of why my emphasis has turned to anti-authoritarianism over propertarianism, because propertarianism can justify authoritarianism

See above about the natural law.

[1:40:31 AM] Noor: Of course they say that liberty comes from self-ownership which comes from property rights...

Property rights in anything else stem from self-ownership rights. You have your wires crossed, dear.

[1:40:59 AM] Brainpolice: Such a fetish for property that even personhood has to be thought of in propertarian terms

Perhaps not personhood but the rights that persons have must be thought of in propertarian terms as all rights are legal entitlements to property.


Oh and always remember: K.I.S.S..

[Noleaders]

It's not like they can make laws that break the natural law. It's not like they can just decree that it's ok to murder anyone who steps onto their property and it be considered legally valid.

Absolutely, except some in fact do justify murdering someone who steps onto your property

First, you are standing on the balcony of a 25th story high-rise apartment when, much to your dismay, you lose your footing and fall out. Happily, in your downward descent, you manage to grab onto a flagpole protruding from the 15th floor of the balcony of another apartment, 10 floors below. Unhappily, the owner of this apartment comes out to her balcony, states that you are protesting by holding on to her flag pole, and demands that you let go (e.g., drop another 15 floors to your death). You protest that you only want to hand walk your way down the flag pole, into her apartment, and then right out of it, but she is adamant. As a libertarian, are you bound to obey her?
....
These examples purposefully try to place us in the mind of the criminal perpetrator of the crime of trespass. We are invited, that is, to empathize with the flag pole hanger, and the hiker, not the respective property owners. But let us reverse this perspective. Suppose the owner of the apartment on the 15th floor has recently been victimized by a rape, perpetrated upon her by a member of the same ethnic or racial group as the person now hand walking his way down her flag pole, soon to uninvitedly enter her apartment. May she not shoot him in self-defense before he enters her premises?

[praxthym]

It's not like they can make laws that break the natural law. It's not like they can just decree that it's ok to murder anyone who steps onto their property and it be considered legally valid.

Absolutely, except some in fact do justify murdering someone who steps onto your property

The non-aggression axiom is a dividing line that distinguishes between crime and non-crime. While it is safe to assume that some self-ownership rights have been given up when the axiom is violated, it doesn't mean therefore that all self-ownership rights have been given up.

It may be in the flagpole case that the non-aggression axiom has already been violated by the person hanging by the flagpole by the fact that she is trespassing by hanging by the flagpole.

If it is the case that the apartment owner is justified to murder someone for hopping into her apartment after hanging onto the flagpole, what stops her from getting out her gun and murdering our flagpole hanger just for hanging on the flagpole?

If one is actually able to use the flagpole, hop through the window and into the apartment, the apartment owner in this case knows the circumstances of the trespass. This makes for an even stronger case in the trespasser's favor when it comes to defense of her self-ownership rights.

Even if the apartment owner was unaware and was surprised by our trespasser in hopping through the window, the owner may be justified in pulling out a gun and perhaps even drawing it onto the trespasser (depending upon the circumstances), but that still doesn't mean that there is a right to murder the trespasser.

It may just be wise under both circumstances to surrender immediately and take one's case to court. That way one can inform the owner of the circumstances of the trespass and insist that one will pay for damages, and in the former case publicly humiliate the owner for her sins.

Rothbard talks about proportionality with regard to compensation and property rights violation. While I disagree about his punishment mandates, he does have a point when it comes to proportionality in compensation. Like when it comes to children stealing candy, it doesn't therefore mean that we can gun them down because of it.

[praxthym]

And if we want to grasp at straws, nothing justifies murder as it implies wrongdoing. Just replace 'murder' with 'kill' and that should make the sense right.

[Noor]

[1:40:31 AM] Noor: Of course they say that liberty comes from self-ownership which comes from property rights...

Property rights in anything else stem from self-ownership rights. You have your wires crossed, dear.

I know there are some who don't think that way. But when I said "property rights" I wasn't referring to property in anything else, I was referring to the concept of property-ownership which precedes any self-ownership.

[praxthym]

I know there are some who don't think that way. But when I said "property rights" I wasn't referring to property in anything else, I was referring to the concept of property-ownership which precedes any self-ownership.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Property is bound up in the concept of ownership. Self-ownership is a type of property right.

[neverfox]

BP, are you arguing that propertarians are wrong because property shouldn't give someone any priority or enforceable claims over objects (then what would we mean by 'property' I wonder) or are you arguing that propertarians are wrong because, while property should involve enforceable claims, they are constrained by other considerations?

[lordmetroid]

It's not like they can make laws that break the natural law. It's not like they can just decree that it's ok to murder anyone who steps onto their property and it be considered legally valid.

Absolutely, except some in fact do justify murdering someone who steps onto your property ...

The non-aggression principle is a ruthless philosophy on its own, I find it needs to be accompanied by principles such as solidarity and equality in order to create a more humane and harmonious society
It is a given that the amount of force exercised in the defense of ones property or life can only be justified up to the point where it is not more than the aggressing party is exercising unless oneself become the aggressor.

Like wise, like some ancaps argue that children are ones property and can be done whatever to, even passively killing them by such means as not feeding them. That is totally insane, people are not property! People are people!

[neverfox]

...dear.

[buddhadada]

People are people!

So why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

dun dun DUN

I agree, though. I don't believe people are property. I don't like self-ownership for just this reason--my body is not property, and my body is not distinguishable from me, so it's built both on dualism and on the idea that people are somehow property.

[shawnpwilbur]

People are people!

I agree, though. I don't believe people are property. I don't like self-ownership for just this reason--my body is not property, and my body is not distinguishable from me, so it's built both on dualism and on the idea that people are somehow property.

There are a couple of logical arguments against the theory of self-ownership as we generally encounter it, but I think the most compelling one is that when you look at arguments like those for homesteading through labor-mixing, property starts as an attribute of the individual, and the "I own" regarding real or chattel property is a special case by extension of the "I am" of personhood or ownness. But people claim when they say that "property" is based in "self-ownership," they seem to generally treat the "I am" as special case of the "I own," which ends up being circular or otherwise silly. The forms of property that are logically derived from "ownness" aren't necessarily going to look much like the extreme form of simple property that Francois and Noor have been opposing, or, for that matter, like traditional anarchist forms. And they're likely to pose a new set of problems. But approaching self-ownership from "ownness" at least gives us a consistent means of approaching the larger questions, and rethinking some of the useful intuitions in Locke, etc.

[neverfox]

The forms of property that are logically derived from "ownness" aren't necessarily going to look much like the extreme form of simple property that Francois and Noor have been opposing, or, for that matter, like traditional anarchist forms. And they're likely to pose a new set of problems. But approaching self-ownership from "ownness" at least gives us a consistent means of approaching the larger questions, and rethinking some of the useful intuitions in Locke, etc.

Right on. And I also think that present "set of problems" like the the fights over bugaboos like interest, profit etc. may just seem a little less like a problem when we are more comfortable seeing property this way. I think there is much less reason to be worried about compensating someone who is letting you borrow their "ownness" as that would seem to defeat the spirit of reciprocity.

[shawnpwilbur]

The forms of property that are logically derived from "ownness" aren't necessarily going to look much like the extreme form of simple property that Francois and Noor have been opposing, or, for that matter, like traditional anarchist forms. And they're likely to pose a new set of problems. But approaching self-ownership from "ownness" at least gives us a consistent means of approaching the larger questions, and rethinking some of the useful intuitions in Locke, etc.

Right on. And I also think that present "set of problems" like the the fights over bugaboos like interest, profit etc. may just seem a little less like a problem when we are more comfortable seeing property this way. I think there is much less reason to be worried about compensating someone who is letting you borrow their "ownness" as that would seem to defeat the spirit of reciprocity.

Well, one immediate wrinkle is that ownness-property is not necessarily even exclusively individual. As I've mentioned various places, Pierre Leroux (influence on both Proudhon and Greene) reasoned that human beings, as essentially social beings -- naturally both subjects and objects of social relations -- logically have some sort of property in one another. In the "gift economy of property" stuff, I've proposed a sort of reboot of anarchist property conventions through a generalized "gift" of exclusivity-in-self-ownership. But, as you say, even less radical rethinkings are likely to transform the way we think about, say, the loan of a plane.

[shawnpwilbur]

Another fairly fundamental problem, which it would be interesting to see Noor and/or Francois tackle, is the initial "right of appropriation," which isn't really solved by the shift to "possession." The first half of Thomas Skidmore's 1829 Rights of Man to Property anticipates a number of Proudhon's arguments, and comes to some interesting conclusions regarding what property rights could logically consist of. The second half is a crazy scheme for dividing up property evenly, but it's a fun read.

[Marja]

I think the root of this problem is many ancaps seem to have reversed the idea of property rights following from self ownership (lets just assume for now this is a coherent concept) to self ownership following from property rights. Instead of people being able to legitimately own something as an extension of their own individual sovereignty this sovereignty must submit to property rights. Its bizzare logic because they destroy any meaning the concept of "self ownership" had on the grounds of something that they claim follows from that concept.

Soylent green is property!

And just think of the horror of the taxes used to fund its distribution...

[Noleaders]

It's not like they can make laws that break the natural law. It's not like they can just decree that it's ok to murder anyone who steps onto their property and it be considered legally valid.

Absolutely, except some in fact do justify murdering someone who steps onto your property

The non-aggression axiom is a dividing line that distinguishes between crime and non-crime. While it is safe to assume that some self-ownership rights have been given up when the axiom is violated, it doesn't mean therefore that all self-ownership rights have been given up.

It may be in the flagpole case that the non-aggression axiom has already been violated by the person hanging by the flagpole by the fact that she is trespassing by hanging by the flagpole.

If it is the case that the apartment owner is justified to murder someone for hopping into her apartment after hanging onto the flagpole, what stops her from getting out her gun and murdering our flagpole hanger just for hanging on the flagpole?

If one is actually able to use the flagpole, hop through the window and into the apartment, the apartment owner in this case knows the circumstances of the trespass. This makes for an even stronger case in the trespasser's favor when it comes to defense of her self-ownership rights.

Even if the apartment owner was unaware and was surprised by our trespasser in hopping through the window, the owner may be justified in pulling out a gun and perhaps even drawing it onto the trespasser (depending upon the circumstances), but that still doesn't mean that there is a right to murder the trespasser.

It may just be wise under both circumstances to surrender immediately and take one's case to court. That way one can inform the owner of the circumstances of the trespass and insist that one will pay for damages, and in the former case publicly humiliate the owner for her sins.

Rothbard talks about proportionality with regard to compensation and property rights violation. While I disagree about his punishment mandates, he does have a point when it comes to proportionality in compensation. Like when it comes to children stealing candy, it doesn't therefore mean that we can gun them down because of it.

Again absolutely, proportionality and a concept of "delayed rights" are essential to lifeboat scenarios and im not arguing against you or enforceable property rights. Im arguing that some ancaps significantly weaken their case by not taking this into account and treating rights violations as a black and white issue. Im pretty sure ive seen it argued that you would in fact be justified in gunning down the child, its ok, since its your candy that you legitimately homesteaded.

[jeremy6d]

Such a fetish for property that even personhood has to be thought of in propertarian terms

Exactly. We libertarians tend to be overly reductionist in our approach to the human condition, favoring discrete, logical explanations for everything. Overemphasizing property as the crucible for all just interaction between humans is a flavor of this. We use consistency as a measure of our politics, and we use that measure on others' politics. But this is not how others approach politics, so this emphasis on a super-consistent philosophy underlying our politics doesn't go very far except to help us keep score in our internecine battles.

In fact, even amongst ourselves in the libertarian left we are predisposed to oversimplify the human condition, seeing it as all about "rights", or "labor", or (in my case) "institutions". But our goal shouldn't be to find the perfect aspect to which everything should reduce. Freedom isn't about finding and then enforcing those aspects of the human experience we understand - to me, it's about allowing those we don't have worked out to nevertheless flourish. I may be an old conservative in the end, but there's something organic and holistic about our lives and those of our friends and loved ones that politics, economics, and sociology will never displace. I'll always be more willing to fight for the former, even as I recognize the importance of the latter. To overlook the mystery of that phenomenon we participate in every day is to go willingly down the road to an ideological corner.

And that's what it comes down to: on its own terms, within its own narrow system, the propertarian reductionism is completely sound and logical. But those terms aren't the accurate measure, because (A) they are simply not acceptable to most people, (B) they do not encompass the depth and breadth of the phenomenon it seeks to explain away, namely the people involved in society.

[praxthym]

...dear.

Is there a problem?

[praxthym]

Again absolutely, proportionality and a concept of "delayed rights" are essential to lifeboat scenarios and im not arguing against you or enforceable property rights. Im arguing that some ancaps significantly weaken their case by not taking this into account and treating rights violations as a black and white issue. Im pretty sure ive seen it argued that you would in fact be justified in gunning down the child, its ok, since its your candy that you legitimately homesteaded.

It's cool we're on the same page. I was just presenting a case just in case.

[Brainpolice]

BP, are you arguing that propertarians are wrong because property shouldn't give someone any priority or enforceable claims over objects (then what would we mean by 'property' I wonder) or are you arguing that propertarians are wrong because, while property should involve enforceable claims, they are constrained by other considerations?

More the latter - that they're wrong because by using property as the starting point, they can logically justify everything they simulteously oppose and end up destroying personal sovereignty completely. The logical outcome of propertarianism should be that whoever is the owner absolutely makes the rules over other people's lives - even if many propertarians (at least partially) shy away from such implications. Even when propertarians explicitly oppose the notion of, say, shooting people for tresspassing, if you press them on other issues it always comes back to this notion that being able to leave someone else's property is sufficient to mean that you're free or that so long as property is aquired in the right way all of the powers that would otherwise be objected to in the state fall under some vague rubric of "legitimate authority"; which I think logically leads to a justification for authoritarianism (and the basis for which things like "anarcho-monarchy" get tossed around in terms of a propertarian-defined anarchism without adjectives).

My objection fundamentally has to do with the relationship between land and people - it's a rejection of rigid territorial authority. If the principle of arbitrary (or practically arbitrary) authority over other people's lives remains intact, and one only objects to who owns the land rather then the general principle of power over people based on land, then I don't think that the fundamental problem has been solved. Rather, what one ends up with is a propertarian justification for the state, in which the criterion of state sovereignty has been shifted to a mere land aquisition issue. And the other part of my concern is that if "pluralism" or "anarchism without adjectives" is concieved of in such terms, I have trouble seeing how it isn't just a plurality of states in practise; the same thing we have now, only we've hit the reset button and let it start out more decentralized, with smaller (in terms of jurisdiction) territorial governments ranging from monarchies to representative democracies forming on the basis of a criterion for land aquisition.

The sense in which I'm an "anti-propertarian" has to do with the role or place of property in the overall conceptual network, and the implications of this. By "propertarianism" I mean a conceptual network that places an undue emphasis on property as a starting point, which essentially defines liberty in terms that follow a property concept (even if this isn't always explicit, there is the tendency to derive liberty from property and to be inconsistent about the logical implications of this), not any old theory that involves a positive conception of property in general. My "anti-propertarianism" in no way implies an absolute moral rejection of all "property", "profit", "rent", and "interest". What it does imply is a rejection of the subordination of individual sovereignty in general to property - which I'm convinced that the standard position of anarcho-capitalists tends to do.

[Noleaders]

Again absolutely, proportionality and a concept of "delayed rights" are essential to lifeboat scenarios and im not arguing against you or enforceable property rights. Im arguing that some ancaps significantly weaken their case by not taking this into account and treating rights violations as a black and white issue. Im pretty sure ive seen it argued that you would in fact be justified in gunning down the child, its ok, since its your candy that you legitimately homesteaded.

It's cool we're on the same page. I was just presenting a case just in case.

Glad we agree