struggling with possession based property rights

[Noleaders]

First to clarify, i do sympathise with this theory but have a few practical questions on its implications.

1. How do we define when someone's finished using something?
Obviously you can't take someone's house once they've walked out of the door and obviously if no one has inhabited or used something in 50 years you may as well take it. But what about the grey area in between?

2. I've always interpreted it as applying only to land (its called the land monopoly after all) but apparently others see it as applying to all objects. If so how is that not just appropriating the product of someone else's labour?

3. If it IS just applicable to land then how relevant is it to modern society? I can see it making a huge difference in south america for example (actually even lockean property rights would) but im not so sure about urban areas in Europe or the US.

4. Wouldnt it make some obviously non exploitative services, such as running a hotel, illegal cos it works on the exact same principle as rent?

5. Wouldn't it have the same effect as price fixing? (at zero too making it a very pronounced effect) Increasing the incentives to demand while simultaneously reducing the incentive to supply. Would anyone build or maintain houses if they couldnt even cover the costs of doing so?


Any help with this will be much appreciated.

[leadhead]

I would say dont define it at all.

This would have to be based on trust of other people. Its not like it is impossible as tribal cultures seem to get along with it no problem. The underlying wisdom being that shitting on someone else does not benefit you in the long run.

I also think that this perspective arises from our current economic squalor. If a house didnt cost 200 large, then people would have less desire to posses it. Not so long ago, most people just built their own houses which would be ideal since you could create what you like.

[Francois Tremblay]

1. How do we define when someone's finished using something?
Obviously you can't take someone's house once they've walked out of the door and obviously if no one has inhabited or used something in 50 years you may as well take it. But what about the grey area in between?

That would depend on the kind of product we're talking about. Our criterion of abandonment for a house is different than our criteron of abandonment for a dollar bill. There are obvious generalities we can say about the subject, but in the end, it will be an issue to be specifically determined by social rules.

2. I've always interpreted it as applying only to land (its called the land monopoly after all) but apparently others see it as applying to all objects. If so how is that not just appropriating the product of someone else's labour?

Proudhon's argument is that everyone's labour participates in everyone else's, and therefore we cannot clearly identify anything as being the product of one specific person's labour. You can say that a given person actually assembled an item together, but all the materials, the tools, his clothes, his food, and so on, ultimately came from millions upon millions of people.

It is much easier to justify it in the case of land, of course, since land is a natural fact and not a product.

3. If it IS just applicable to land then how relevant is it to modern society? I can see it making a huge difference in south america for example (actually even lockean property rights would) but im not so sure about urban areas in Europe or the US.

What do you mean, how relevant is it? It's relevant everywhere where there are corporations and government, everywhere where there is rent, everywhere where there are homeless people and "landowners"... the applications are worldwide and universal.

4. Wouldnt it make some obviously non exploitative services, such as running a hotel, illegal cos it works on the exact same principle as rent?

Not quite. The main difference is that a hotel provides numerous actual services, in addition to renting. In mutualism, the cost of occupying a hotel room would fall down to costs (including the distributed cost of the building itself).

5. Wouldn't it have the same effect as price fixing? (at zero too making it a very pronounced effect) Increasing the incentives to demand while simultaneously reducing the incentive to supply. Would anyone build or maintain houses if they couldnt even cover the costs of doing so?

Actually, since price would be equal to costs, they obviously would cover their costs, and nothing else. That's kindof the whole point.

[Noleaders]

That would depend on the kind of product we're talking about. Our criterion of abandonment for a house is different than our criteron of abandonment for a dollar bill. There are obvious generalities we can say about the subject, but in the end, it will be an issue to be specifically determined by social rules.

But aren't social rules meant to be defined by possession based rights?

Proudhon's argument is that everyone's labour participates in everyone else's, and therefore we cannot clearly identify anything as being the product of one specific person's labour. You can say that a given person actually assembled an item together, but all the materials, the tools, his clothes, his food, and so on, ultimately came from millions upon millions of people.

It is much easier to justify it in the case of land, of course, since land is a natural fact and not a product.

Ok, but surely all the materials and stuff made by other people's labour is paid for in the transaction anyway?

Not quite. The main difference is that a hotel provides numerous actual services, in addition to renting. In mutualism, the cost of occupying a hotel room would fall down to costs (including the distributed cost of the building itself).

It's still absentee ownership though. A corporation provides many services too, albeit often quite badly, so would ceo's still exist?

Actually, since price would be equal to costs, they obviously would cover their costs, and nothing else. That's kindof the whole point.

But then if your maintaining a house you can charge rent for it, just only enough to cover the costs of maintaining it.

[Francois Tremblay]

But aren't social rules meant to be defined by possession based rights?

No. Rights are expressed as social rules.

Ok, but surely all the materials and stuff made by other people's labour is paid for in the transaction anyway?

Which transaction?

It's still absentee ownership though. A corporation provides many services too, albeit often quite badly, so would ceo's still exist?

Corporations are made-up legal constructs, so your analogy is kinda like comparing an actual toymaker to Santa Claus.

But then if your maintaining a house you can charge rent for it, just only enough to cover the costs of maintaining it.

Of course you can charge for maintenance, that's never at issue. The issue is, who's actually occupying the place. If you rent a hotel room for one day, and then leave forever, I don't really see how you could make a case for occupancy falling to you. If you stay there for months, that might be a different issue.

[Noleaders]

Which transaction?

When you use tools that were the product of someone else's labour you pay for them.

Corporations are made-up legal constructs, so your analogy is kinda like comparing an actual toymaker to Santa Claus.

They are. But the point was about absentee ownership.

Of course you can charge for maintenance, that's never at issue. The issue is, who's actually occupying the place. If you rent a hotel room for one day, and then leave forever, I don't really see how you could make a case for occupancy falling to you. If you stay there for months, that might be a different issue.

I meant landlords renting property would be able to do so, cos the rent would be to cover maintainence costs and the initial purchase of the property, but surely that defeats the point.

[Francois Tremblay]

When you use tools that were the product of someone else's labour you pay for them.

I don't see how that's relevant to the point.

They are. But the point was about absentee ownership.

Right. There can be no such thing as absentee ownership.

I meant landlords renting property would be able to do so, cos the rent would be to cover maintainence costs and the initial purchase of the property, but surely that defeats the point.

Right, but that's a different case. In the case of the hotel, no occupant could make a case of ownership. In the case of an apartment or house, you can.

[Noleaders]

I don't see how that's relevant to the point.

Cos the ownership has been transferred to the buyer.

Right, but that's a different case. In the case of the hotel, no occupant could make a case of ownership. In the case of an apartment or house, you can.

Yes they can, the workers own it and are renting it out to people as a service. Just like a landlord would say they own a house and are renting it out to the tenants as a service.

[|Y|]

Yes they can, the workers own it and are renting it out to people as a service. Just like a landlord would say they own a house and are renting it out to the tenants as a service.

A hotel provides more service than mere rent. Clean bed coverings, sometimes free food, free electicity, cable. Trash removal. Regular cleaning. It's not the same thing.

If a "hotel" was run whereby I do everything myself (clean my little room, etc), it would be more like an apartment complex composed of studio apartments. The question then is whether or not the hotel rooms are being *used* by those operating the facilities, as in, used to provide an actual service whereby labor is utilized.

A landlord often does squat for a house, you are generally required to do maintainance except for, say, the replacement of appliances that were included (such as a fridge, or a washing machine or oven). Generally a land lord will make you do everything else, though, and then forbid you to make improvements. One time replacement of something does not constitute "labor utilized in the service of an individual," especially because several months of rent would suffice to replace all appliances.

The real travesty is in the procurement and selling of houses as in the house market, whereby owners sometimes don't even visit the houses at any point, where banks own them along with investors who have never laid eyes on them. This is truely the definition of theft, because these people are taking your money in exchange for something that they would never have used except to exploit you by taking your money.

[shawnpwilbur]

1. How do we define when someone's finished using something?

Standards for abandonment are going to have to be established by communities--and then individuals will weigh the costs of resisting them. The hope would be that any anarchist or libertarian community would have enough respect for the principle of mutuality to come up with standards that won't step on too many toes. We explored a pretty loose set of standards in the "summer house" thread on FLL. I would be inclined to think "after the revolution" we would all like more flexibility in our lives, and aren't likely to make rules for ourselves that increase our immobility and anxiety.

2. I've always interpreted it as applying only to land...

"Occupancy and use" traditionally applies strictly to all the "free gifts of nature," and with some conditions to immovable improvements, for which the improver should be compensated in cases not involving simple abandonment.

3. If it IS just applicable to land then how relevant is it to modern society?

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.

4. Wouldnt it make some obviously non exploitative services, such as running a hotel, illegal cos it works on the exact same principle as rent?

There's no rule anywhere that says services can't be compensated--quite the contrary. The argument against rent is that it isn't payment for a service, but compensation extorted by privilege.

5. Wouldn't it have the same effect as price fixing? (at zero too making it a very pronounced effect) Increasing the incentives to demand while simultaneously reducing the incentive to supply. Would anyone build or maintain houses if they couldnt even cover the costs of doing so?

[/quote][/quote]

The mechanisms for financing construction would certainly change. People would build and maintain homes for use, not for profit--and why wouldn't they do a better job?

Hope that's not too long for anyone.

[|Y|]

Note that the USA has enough housing to house every single person, already. What often happens is whole subdivisions are bulldozed down in order to liquidate the market. Often this is done in the guise of "this was a drug neighborhood" and such.

During frontieer times houses were built by individuals helping one another. They'd get together and do what is now called a "barn raising." Once the house is built there's no tax and no one saying that you cannot have the house because they have some sort of coercive influance over you (in modern times we call this influance the police and the state).

Lots of stuff here: Presumably, we agree that "occupancy and use" might well extend to the second home. The neighbor kid who mows the lawn agrees to his pay, rather than claiming ownership of the front yard. The necessary work done to keep the summer place intact all winter, as well as the acknowledgment of multiple uses by the other neighbors, maintains the public acknowledgment of title on the other end.

Depends on the neighbors, ultimately, and largely hinges on ones capacity to pay them off and keep them happy. I feel this leaves room for class distinctions and creates an environment where non-possessive property can floruish.

After all, if the neighbors can be content with you using a house once a year, what is compelling you to not sublet it out for the other part of the year? The neighbors are seemingly happy with it being empty, there's no reason they would be discontent with it being habitated.

[shawnpwilbur]

Lots of stuff here: Presumably, we agree that "occupancy and use" might well extend to the second home. The neighbor kid who mows the lawn agrees to his pay, rather than claiming ownership of the front yard. The necessary work done to keep the summer place intact all winter, as well as the acknowledgment of multiple uses by the other neighbors, maintains the public acknowledgment of title on the other end.

Depends on the neighbors, ultimately, and largely hinges on ones capacity to pay them off and keep them happy. I feel this leaves room for class distinctions and creates an environment where non-possessive property can floruish.

Well, "depends on the neighbors" is what I said. Though if you can only relate to the neighbors by "paying them off," then property conventions might not be your worst problem. If you bothered to read the thread, there's not a bit of ground given to non-possessive property. What Proudhon suggested in "Theory of Property" was that upkeep on land ought to give one simple property for a full year. At the summer cabin, where the upkeep involves fighting back the woods, the marks of possession are absolutely clear. At the "regular" suburban home, of course, the neighbors might consider the house "abandoned" if the lawn wasn't mowed twice a week. Presumably, however, anarchist property conventions will include less busy-bodyism and at least different kinds of home-owners associations. You'll have to make the case for "class distinctions," though I suspect any approach that didn't "leave room" for something to go awry wouldn't be terribly appealing to a serious anarchist.

After all, if the neighbors can be content with you using a house once a year, what is compelling you to not sublet it out for the other part of the year? The neighbors are seemingly happy with it being empty, there's no reason they would be discontent with it being habitated.

Once a year? Who said anything about "once a year"? You mean, once a year for six months? That was the example. But, ultimately, what would be the problem with subletting it, in an occupancy and use society, where the only incentive to rent would be the provision of a real service?

[|Y|]

What happens when the lease is up and you want the house back, and I don't want to leave? You shoot me? What happens when you want to move back in, and you leave your other house unoccupied? You shoot anyone who wants to live there?

Absentee landlordism isn't mutualism.

[shawnpwilbur]

What happens when the lease is up and you want the house back, and I don't want to leave? You shoot me? What happens when you want to move back in, and you leave your other house unoccupied? You shoot anyone who wants to live there?

Absentee landlordism isn't mutualism.

That might be true, although it has nothing to do with our debate thus far. I don't want to shoot anybody. Do you want to continue to occupy a house that you have contracted to leave at a certain time, whether or not you have engaged in the labor to maintain it? That's certainly not mutualism either. And it's the sort of non-reciprocal behavior that would probably just get you shunned in a mutualist community.

The question remains: "ultimately, what would be the problem with subletting it, in an occupancy and use society, where the only incentive to rent would be the provision of a real service?"

If the answer is that there are people (like you?) who think of their neighbors only in terms of buying them off or holding them off with guns, well, yeah, every economic system and property regime is going to have that cross to bear, just like it's going to face people who can't distinguish, or won't, between the fruits of privilege and the fruits of labor. (The FLL thread stuck very carefully to a defense of the fruits of labor.)

Honestly, though, mutualism as Proudhon envisioned it in his mature work left a lot of room for property rights more "simple" and absolute even than those sanctioned by the state, and Proudhon didn't have much enthusiasm for forbidding much of anything, provided the playing field was relatively level and free from privilege, so that people had to carry their own costs. What mutualism is or isn't really depends on the spirit of the interactions, rather than the conventions observed.

[Noleaders]

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.

There's no rule anywhere that says services can't be compensated--quite the contrary. The argument against rent is that it isn't payment for a service, but compensation extorted by privilege.

But whats the difference between renting a room and renting a house? Would rent still exist in a mutualist world, if it was used to cover the costs of maintaining the apartment or house.

The mechanisms for financing construction would certainly change. People would build and maintain homes for use, not for profit--and why wouldn't they do a better job?

Ok but dont people rent when they cant afford to buy their own house? Would cheap accomodation still exist without it?