struggling with possession based property rights

[Francois Tremblay]

What do you mean cheap accomodation? We keep paying month after month after month- with zero hope of ever being done with paying.

[|Y|]

So, under shawns definition we could easily have a mob state whereby each "property" is protected by a "landlord" who "cedes to the will of the mob leader." Sounds pretty workable and is certainly how I'd go about it if I was a raging capitalist.

[Noleaders]

What do you mean cheap accomodation? We keep paying month after month after month- with zero hope of ever being done with paying.

Which is better than nothing if you cant afford to buy a house.

So, under shawns definition we could easily have a mob state whereby each "property" is protected by a "landlord" who "cedes to the will of the mob leader." Sounds pretty workable and is certainly how I'd go about it if I was a raging capitalist.

i only skimmed through that debate but i know that isnt what he was saying.

[Francois Tremblay]

Which is better than nothing if you cant afford to buy a house.

"Better than nothing" is not exactly what we're aiming for.

[|Y|]

Francois Tremblay, wtf man, I swear you're the only mutualist I agree with around here (given our past spats this is saying something, though I don't usually hold anything against anyone).

[shawnpwilbur]

It depends on how you're going to apply it. Proudhon wanted to make sure everyone who desired it could have a place to live on, and retreat to, free of any obligations. That would change the balance of power significantly.

More specifically, what about when people's homes are built on top of each other like apartment blocks? Cos its all on the same land.

Well, I said earlier that immovable property was likely to be treated very much like land. If somebody builds an apartment building on their own, I would certainly think they're do compensation for their outlay, in an amount in keeping with the cost principle, but certainly not a perpetual rent simply for owning, or even for improving, the land. |Y| is going on about "landlords," ignoring all the distinctions between the fruits of labor and those of privilege. The land is not a result of labor--not a product, but a "free gift"-- and the traditional mutualist argument is that exclusive control over the land can only be achieved by improvement, and only for a very limited duration. Proudhon's suggestion seems to be that preparing the land for a crop gives one property through the harvest, more or less. I would think that for an apartment building the time might be roughly however long it took to recoup expenses, including labor time and perhaps compensation for marginal losses. But we know that an apartment building is never actually going to be built by a single individual, so there are (at least potentially) lots of further limits on landlord power. I suspect ultimately a mutualist society would be dominated by the barn-raising approach to home construction, and that even the erection of skyscrapers would tend to involve "associated labor," rather than speculators and developers, proceeding on the say-so and with the support of the state (as it happens now.) The things about a mutualist society that capitalists complain about as "removing incentives" to conventional development hopefully would discourage a lot of the kind of things we see now.

(I should add that, personally, I don't think that property can ever legitimately involve the "abuse of property," as Proudhon believed it did. There are a number of elements of mutualist property theory that have never been cleared up, to my knowledge. "Simple property," minus the right of abuse, would be simply exclusive possession, and exclusive possession, for a term determined by labor or "occupancy and use," would naturally (I think) limits set on the "right of appropriation" and the circumstances of the "use." Sorry. I know that's obscure, but there's a lot to look at again if we say no to "abuse." But the bottom line is that we add even more limits to potential abuses by looking more seriously at the nature of property. That's probably the itinerary for the future of mutualism. Anyway...)

As for the questions about renting a room or a house, I think the simple answer is that there is actually nothing any more wrong with paying for the use of a home over some long-term period than there is with paying for the use of a room for the night--provided you're getting your money's worth in service, from your perspective, and there's no coercion (direct or structural) involved. I would like to think that most people in a mutualist society will be willing to shoulder responsibility for the upkeep of their homes or living spaces, but a mutualist society will be demanding, and some people will undoubtedly pour all of that "occupying and using" energy into other aspects of their lives, leaving the upkeep of their homespaces to professionals, who might also be builders, but will never be "landlords" in the current sense in a truly mutualist society.

And what makes a "truly mutualist society"? Not a belief that rent or usury is eee-vil. Not any of the conventions proposed by historical mutualists. Mutualism is based on the principle of reciprocity--"do unto others as you would have them do unto you," more or less--and the experimental process, by which we move from experimental "approximations of justice" to (hopefully) higher approximations.

[Noleaders]

Which is better than nothing if you cant afford to buy a house.

"Better than nothing" is not exactly what we're aiming for.

No, but neither is nothing.



Thanks for that shawn, it cleared a lot up for me.

(btw your going back to walls of text again )

[shawnpwilbur]

Thanks for that shawn, it cleared a lot up for me.

(btw your going back to walls of text again )

Yeah. When ya'll figger out how to plan the free society in 140 characters or less, I'll STFU.

[thelastindividual]

Thanks for that shawn, it cleared a lot up for me.

(btw your going back to walls of text again )

Yeah. When ya'll figger out how to plan the free society in 140 characters or less, I'll STFU.

Since you're in this thread can you answer my question from the time store thread plz?

You'll have to excuse me. Most of my political grounding comes from communism/syndicalism. I don't know all that much about market anarchism. I've leafed through a few threads at ALL-left but I still don't understand

What sort of currency do you need?
Why do you need it?
Do any of the old anarchist models meet your needs?
What were those models?

The underlined problem is my main concern. Of course I'm not too knowledgable on the other three either. If you could explain it to me as simply as possible or direct me to somewhere that will I'd be quite grateful

K thnkz

EDIT: Free society in under 140 characters? How about - ugoddatakedapowerbackfromdapigsnbildalternatives?

[|Y|]

So what would stop me from hiring lackey's who act as "landlords" for two different properties of my own. They live in one half a year, and the other half a year. I have 20 hired hands, meaning I get paid rent on 40 properties.

Now mind you, they get paid handsomely, half the rent that I receive. They are providing me a service similar to that lawn mowing boy, after all. They get free room and board and only have to move twice a year. The only "work" they have to do is sitting in the house and acting as the "landlord" (indeed, telling people any story that they want to make up in order to convince them that it is indeed their property).

They'd have no compelling reason to quit working for me or to "take" my property, because, quite simply, they'd be secure. If they squatted in one of my houses, I'd simply stop paying them, and then they'd actually have to go out and do a real job.

All the while I'm taking 50% of their earnings, which would be inherently impossible if we actually respected possessive based rights and rejected the notion of the "summer house."

The only way I can see the "summer house" metaphor working in mutualism without it devolving into this draconanian bullshit is if it was approached from a "time share" perspective.

[shawnpwilbur]

So what would stop me from hiring lackey's who act as "landlords" for two different properties of my own. They live in one half a year, and the other half a year. I have 20 hired hands, meaning I get paid rent on 40 properties.

Now mind you, they get paid handsomely, half the rent that I receive. They are providing me a service similar to that lawn mowing boy, after all. They get free room and board and only have to move twice a year. The only "work" they have to do is sitting in the house and acting as the "landlord" (indeed, telling people any story that they want to make up in order to convince them that it is indeed their property).

They'd have no compelling reason to quit working for me or to "take" my property, because, quite simply, they'd be secure. If they squatted in one of my houses, I'd simply stop paying them, and then they'd actually have to go out and do a real job.

All the while I'm taking 50% of their earnings, which would be inherently impossible if we actually respected possessive based rights and rejected the notion of the "summer house."

The only way I can see the "summer house" metaphor working in mutualism without it devolving into this draconanian bullshit is if it was approached from a "time share" perspective.

Well, I suspect a mutualist society would simply laugh at this sort of rigamarole. It's obvious you and your lackies would have absolutely zero mutualist street cred: the more rule-bound mutualists are just going to call you a "civilized cannibal" and probably post pictures of you and your lackies on telephone poles, antifa style. Me, I'm going to be looking to see who actually does the real upkeep on the property, and figure that, unless someone can explain this nonsense better than you just did, that they are the real occupiers and users. Remember that the kid who gets paid to mow the lawn is necessary at present because one house is in a neighborhood where the signs of occupancy include "keeping up appearances." The neighbors would know that the house wasn't abandoned without him, but hiring him to maintain community aesthetic standards is part of being a neighbor, just as allowing hunting and not unnecessarily messing with hunting blinds and snowmobile trails is part of being neighborly at the summer place.

I don't think your plan actually makes much sense. If you have yourself, your "landlords," and your tenants, somebody still has to maintain the property. If the lackies are doing the upkeep, then you need to pay them more at least the cost of upkeep, and then you have to find tenants willing to pay twice the cost of occupancy and use for short-term use of the property. Any real mutualist housing market is going to make that a fairly unattractive deal. If the tenants are doing the upkeep, then local conventions are going to recognize them as the real occupiers and users. In any event, in order to be recognized, directly or by proxy, as occupying owner of 40 properties, you're going to have to find means to maintain those properties in a way that the community recognizes as occupancy--which stretches things much too far.

Again, mutualism is about mutuality, not about doctrinal opposition to particular kinds of transactions. Any anarchist society ought to provide greater plenty, greater opportunities, greater variety and greater security to everyone. The more truly mutual a society became, the less need their would be for exclusive, individual or family property, and a transformation away from that sort of property seems inevitable eventually, if we are going to really take an across-the-board increase in plenty and opportunity seriously. But the basic principle won't change--and you simply aren't addressing that principle of mutuality. When somebody talks to me like I'm a capitalist, I just assume they're a bit of a troll...

[shawnpwilbur]

All the while I'm taking 50% of their earnings, which would be inherently impossible if we actually respected possessive based rights and rejected the notion of the "summer house."

More substantively, I've laid out some very specific terms under which the "summer house" is possible under mutualism:

* recognition by both communities as members of those communities
* provision of all major upkeep on both properties
* maintenance of real or perceived property rights of the neighbors in both communities (whether it's a matter of keeping the lawn mowed or granting use-rights for hunting and snow-mobiling on the summer property)
* adherence to the principle of reciprocity and mutuality in all dealings

Presumably, "actually respecting possessive based rights" doesn't mean only respecting occupancy when the possessor is actually on the property. If you're going to occupy the house when the owners go out for a quart of milk, then you're certainly no mutualist. So how do you draw your "actual" line on abandonment? How long a vacation can I take without worrying that you'll figure you have a "right" to appropriate my dwelling? Will you discuss it with me or the neighbors, or is that too much bother? If the neighbors say, "Hey, somebody lives there," will you respect that?

You're honestly not coming across as someone who is terribly concerned with reciprocity...

[|Y|]

shawnpwilbur,

Me, I'm going to be looking to see who actually does the real upkeep on the property, and figure that, unless someone can explain this nonsense better than you just did, that they are the real occupiers and users.

That's precisely what I suggested you would do. You'd be happy with hired landlords, or deputies, or whatever you want to call them.

The neighbors would know that the house wasn't abandoned without him, but hiring him to maintain community aesthetic standards is part of being a neighbor, just as allowing hunting and not unnecessarily messing with hunting blinds and snowmobile trails is part of being neighborly at the summer place.

When I lived in a house, whenever someone would go on vacation in the neighborhood, we'd just mow their lawn for them, after all, we had a riding mower and it was a heck of a sight easier to just keep rolling along, than it would be to rely on some yard service with strangers who may or may not be trustworthy.

If you have yourself, your "landlords," and your tenants, somebody still has to maintain the property. If the lackies are doing the upkeep, then you need to pay them more at least the cost of upkeep, and then you have to find tenants willing to pay twice the cost of occupancy and use for short-term use of the property.

Well, I'm going on the assumption that other mutualists will exploit guys like you who "figure that they are the real occupiers and users." Resulting in myself and many others like me having a marginal control over the market that matters to me.

Indeed, maintenance on property is a trivial cost, and the tenant is going to be paying for it either way. There's no "twice the cost" here because it has to be done year round anyway.

If you lived in your own house you'd mow your own lawn, you leave that house for 6 months you pay someone to mow the same lawn.

I have a lackey living in a house, mowing the lawn, it is *their house* for 6 months out of the year, just as it would be yours. They don't get paid for that. They merely get paid to keep up appearances and make sure no one disrespects my property.

If the tenants are doing the upkeep, then local conventions are going to recognize them as the real occupiers and users.

That's precisely the point. Yet the lawn mowing guy who cleans up the shrubbery and rakes the leaves doesn't get to have a key to the house, and for all intents and purposes, would be rejected from having any claim whatsoever.

In any event, in order to be recognized, directly or by proxy, as occupying owner of 40 properties, you're going to have to find means to maintain those properties in a way that the community recognizes as occupancy--which stretches things much too far.

No, I think you missed the point. I could care less about "recognition." Indeed, I even said if one of my lackeys decided to take my good will and use it against me by taking over a piece of property that I have hired them to protect, then the only thing I would (could) do is stop paying them. Simple.

The assumption is that I can give them more than if they did not agree to my simple arrangement. Free money (half the rent year round), free occupation.

It's about profit.

When somebody talks to me like I'm a capitalist, I just assume they're a bit of a troll...

I look for holes, I found a gaping one, sorry. I think like a capitalist. Capitalists remain in power, therefore it is necessary to see how they would react to such systems.

If you're going to occupy the house when the owners go out for a quart of milk, then you're certainly no mutualist.

Yeah, because I'm suggesting that here (third idiotic mutualist so far on this site to make that claim).

So how do you draw your "actual" line on abandonment? How long a vacation can I take without worrying that you'll figure you have a "right" to appropriate my dwelling? Will you discuss it with me or the neighbors, or is that too much bother? If the neighbors say, "Hey, somebody lives there," will you respect that?

Sure. Let me know that you plan to come back, give me a decent time frame, and I'd let others know that a given place is occupied. You're gone for 6 months, I don't hear back from you, I meet some nice kids who need a place to stay, your shit goes on the street, because you decided to just exploit my good will. Likewise, I don't rent shit from anyone, and if someone is trying to rent something out under the guise of a "vacation house" I'll be the one posting big posters on polls talking about how draconian it is, and I'll be the one providing others with a separate place of habitation for free.

The whole idea of "vacation houses" is based upon a non-possessive pretense, and as I show, it's easy enough to exploit an environment whereby this is allowed to escalate into large collections of property profiting an individual.

You're honestly not coming across as someone who is terribly concerned with reciprocity...

I expect nothing of no one (let me bet you pull a Mike/R on me here and twist around what this phrasing actually means).

[shawnpwilbur]

Well, even if the "holes" had actually been in my argument, rather than in all the random "what if" scenarios attached, the unprincipled property-vigilanteism presented as an alternative probably isn't all that appealing to many people. I'm picturing you, flush with revolutionary victory, after breaking into my aging parents' house and dragging their personal belongings into the street, so that people won't be exploited by these dangerous enemies of the people. But, hey, you're doing it for "the kids," right? Weak. Super-weak.

There are two things that are going to be true in a mutualist society, if it has any significant connection to the principles of the tradition: mutuality, occupancy and use, the cost principle, etc. First, the market price of any real property is going to run right about even with the actual costs of occupancy and use. Second, the community is going to be intolerant of, probably derisive towards, attempts to reinstitute privilege. The closer that mutualist communities are to traditional principles, the more emphasis they're likely to have on radical experimentation as a way of life, and the more they will focus on constantly perfecting their institutions and expanding liberties and opportunities. When faced with present inequality, they'll do their best to level up, rather than level down. Rather than deciding nobody should have a second place to get away to, they work to make sure everyone who wants one can get it.

Personally, I'm fighting for a world in which both the summer and winter residences in the example thread could be traded in on more efficient and ecologically sound alternatives, but I don't think we'll make much progress in that direction until we've played around with the forms we currently have, in a context relatively free of the kind of privilege that channeled things in this direction in the first place. Anyway...

Let's assume that the costs of property upkeep really are quite minor. For your scheme to work, you're going to have to pay your lackies several times the cost of upkeep for them to be paid well, which means you have to find tenants willing to pay several times the going rate for a short-term lease, on the understanding that you are not actually going to provide any service to them. Sure, consenting adults get up to some weird shit together, and who am I to forbid such a transaction, but I'm guessing your success will depend on finding a kind of economic masochist who might be a rare bird indeed. You'll need to corner the market somehow, and maybe you could start to do that with your 40 properties, but how are you going to get your 40 properties? How are the dwellings going to be built? You have to care about "recognition" and reciprocity in a mutualist community. Any workers you hire are going to expect to be paid a fair wage, which may be cheap compared to some kinds of capitalist labor, but you're going to be expected to carry your own costs. If your first house is built by a barn-raising, you're going to be expected to participate in other barn-raisings. How many will you have to take part in to get your 40 houses built? You may be building the houses of the people you want to rent to. If you go to the mutual bank and want free credit on property you are actually occupying and using, you're not going to get more than half of the value of the property, which you have said is negligible; and while your neighbors may be bound to take your currency if they are also members of the bank, nobody is obliged to meet your terms. If you go to try to insure your "project" in a mutual insurance pool, your proposal is unlikely to gain many fans.

Face it, even here in the belly of the capitalist beast, lots of not terribly radical people are aware that it's not in their best interests to trade with some people, or some businesses, even when the prices are apparently low. Expecting that people will pay really high prices, because you think you've found a "hole" is unrealistic. And even the most wide-open forms of mutualism, like the one Proudhon proposes in "Theory of Property," still assume reciprocity and some form of the cost principle as their most basic principles.

[|Y|]

I'm picturing you, flush with revolutionary victory, after breaking into my aging parents' house and dragging their personal belongings into the street, so that people won't be exploited by these dangerous enemies of the people.

This is why I dislike market based thinkers. They have convoluted ideas about reality, and they love twisting shit around and inventing stuff out of nothing.

First, the market price of any real property is going to run right about even with the actual costs of occupancy and use.

Irrelevant.

I buy a house built at cost (barn raising, whatever), it's mine, done.

I rent a house that is someones "vacation spot" after the "vacation is over" I move out. It's not mine. Not done. I am beholden to the "property owner." Even if rent is "at cost."

Second, the community is going to be intolerant of, probably derisive towards, attempts to reinstitute privilege.

Oh yes, relying on "the community" to "be enlightened" and not tolerate this scenario (even though the scenario exists right here and now in reality).

Personally, I'm fighting for a world in which both the summer and winter residences in the example thread could be traded in on more efficient and ecologically sound alternatives

I wanted to say something along these lines but I didn't want to veer the discussion too far off of the topic. But I envision the deurbanization of society toward a more civilized (city based) society.

Let's assume that the costs of property upkeep really are quite minor. For your scheme to work, you're going to have to pay your lackies several times the cost of upkeep for them to be paid well, which means you have to find tenants willing to pay several times the going rate for a short-term lease, on the understanding that you are not actually going to provide any service to them.

The lackey gets a free house and is paid half of the cost of upkeep in another house that is being rented. We only have to charge double, which is quite reasonable when the cost of rent now is far beyond that of the cost of upkeep.

If they want to do the upkeep themselves, would a mutualist charge them anything at all? Also, would a modern person in civil society have a big problem paying, say, $100 a month for rent (whereas in your "enlightened communities" the going rate would be $50)?

This is all about being able to subtly coerce the markets and put myself in a better position without any recourse in society.

I'm guessing your success will depend on finding a kind of economic masochist who might be a rare bird indeed.

If we had people who refused to pay double then we'd be doing a shitload better than we are now. But people pay inordinate amounts of rent as it is. Granted, the state is largely responsible for their having to pay such amounts of rent, but my lackeys would actually serve the same exact purpose, they create occupancy via force, and coerce the people into ceding to the will of the hierarchy.

Instead of course, of police roaming the streets making sure empty houses stay that way unless someone pays, we'd have one lackey in each house keeping it "occupied." This is basic warlord / mobster behavior. One "landlord" could concievably keep occupied two or three houses for themselves. "I am a trucker, I'm on the road a lot."

Anyway, getting the houses is irrelevant. All I need are two and I can get more.

Face it, even here in the belly of the capitalist beast, lots of not terribly radical people are aware that it's not in their best interests to trade with some people, or some businesses, even when the prices are apparently low.

Unfortunately this seems predicated on the idea that everyone is radicalized and understanding of these kinds of property relationships.

People aren't going to ever be.

I'll just leave it at that.