An article worth reading

[thelastindividual]

R

fruits of the earth belong to us all

Why do they?

Because in theory at least no man has any greater claim than any other to them

Does this mean i can walk into people's houses and take stuff, it does belong to me afterall.

I interpreted it as more of an argument for egalitarian distribution of goods and property. People should have roughly the same amount as each other because no one has any greater claim to it than anyone else. In practice the best way to enforce this (Or not enforce at all) is to exercise rights based on possession because people can only roughly possess the same amount as one another

and the earth itself to nobody

Well "nobody" isn't a conscious being so cant own anything. Since the earth belongs to no one anyone can take it, or part of it, for themselves because there is no theft involved. If the argument is no one should be allowed to own parts of the earth then it still encounters the problem of separation of ownership from control because we do use the earth.

Like I said I interpreted it as a largely rhetorical argument for egalitarian distribution

If we start fencing off land(which lockean property allows us to do) we'll end up right back where we are now

Not neccessarily, i think even applying a strict lockean standard of land ownership would have some rather radical effects. For one thing we would have to give most of american back to native americans, most of england to the decendants of peasants and the latifundia in places such as south america would fall apart. Whether we would end up where we are now is a question of how do people gain such large amounts of land in the first place, which historically has been through the state, and at what point to diseconomies of scale catch up to economies of scale.

And how are you going to enforce all that? Lockean property ignores the fact that once someone has done enough labour to have owned the land it is nigh on impossible for anyone to earn it back because it is not legitimately their's to use. In this way it is conceivable that monopolies will develop leading back to what we have now. And just because it has previously been done through the state does not mean it could not be done legitimately (In lockean terms at least) in the future. With regards to claims such as the native american claim to america good luck getting all the people who already live their to leave

[|Y|]

In what sense of the word?

4 a: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : estate 3 bplural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body cobsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country

[|Y|]

thelastindividual, Lockean property concerns *only contract*. Basically if someone can get you to agree to something, then it is legitimate. Even if that agreement is because they have no other choice, and especially if that agreement results in exploitation.

Capitalists (and Lockeans) are not supporters of property, they are supporters of contract.

[Noleaders]

Because in theory at least no man has any greater claim than any other to them

Yes they do, if its the fruit of their labour.

I interpreted it as more of an argument for egalitarian distribution of goods and property. People should have roughly the same amount as each other because no one has any greater claim to it than anyone else. In practice the best way to enforce this (Or not enforce at all) is to exercise rights based on possession because people can only roughly possess the same amount as one another

Again if its the fruit of their labour they do have more claim to it. Possession is not the same as common ownership.

Like I said I interpreted it as a largely rhetorical argument for egalitarian distribution

I know it is, but im challenging the logic behind that rhetoric.

And how are you going to enforce all that? Lockean property ignores the fact that once someone has done enough labour to have owned the land it is nigh on impossible for anyone to earn it back because it is not legitimately their's to use.

They can buy it. But yeah this is the anarchist concern over lockean property rights, though to ground it in some form of common ownership is a bad idea.

In this way it is conceivable that monopolies will develop leading back to what we have now. And just because it has previously been done through the state does not mean it could not be done legitimately (In lockean terms at least) in the future.

Owning lots of land is very expensive, there's got to be a point to having it. It depends at what point diseconomies of scale catch up to economies of scale. I remember reading that in car manufacturing, which is pretty capital intensive, economies of scale are reached in a plant that can produce just 60,000 cars a year (about 3-6% of the american market) so i doubt it would take long.

With regards to claims such as the native american claim to america good luck getting all the people who already live their to leave

I know, just pointing it out.

[Noleaders]

5 a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign

This is the only one i saw as being like a property owner.

However, property owners arent politically organised and arent sovereign because they cant use arbitrary violence against people, only defensive violence.

thelastindividual, Lockean property concerns *only contract*. Basically if someone can get you to agree to something, then it is legitimate. Even if that agreement is because they have no other choice, and especially if that agreement results in exploitation.

Capitalists (and Lockeans) are not supporters of property, they are supporters of contract.

Not quite. You can only trade something you have a right to trade and the context of the trade does matter. Only lunatics like walter block see any contract as legitimate.

[thelastindividual]

@Noleaders: I'll step down from this argument for now. I still need to look more into the issue of property. On the one hand I find it hard to justify stamping out associations that use the lockean standard of property as long as every member of the association consents. On the other hand I can't shake the feeling that lockean property poses a threat to the freedom of the free society. I'll leave the argument for someone else to pick up on and do some more research. Just to make sure I don't miss anything because of my obvious bias what books did you read (If any) to lead you to the conclusions you came to?

[|Y|]

However, property owners arent politically organised and arent sovereign because they cant use arbitrary violence against people, only defensive violence.

Tell that to home-owners associations who will tear up your yard if you don't cede to their will... tell that to the various cattle and farm associations, all who exert political will. Indeed, the whole of politics started via the accumulation of resources. Be real here.

Not quite. You can only trade something you have a right to trade and the context of the trade does matter. Only lunatics like walter block see any contract as legitimate.

But unlike anarchists their "right to" something is defined solely by the contract that they utilized to acquire it. Lockeans then focus on contract accumulation rather than acquiring possessions.

The "right to" a possession is only defined by ones possessing it. How they got it is of course up to question given whatever system you chose (though I chose a system where there is nothing in the way of people acquiring possessions), but in the end there is no "contract" once possession is taken place.

Lockean contract goes beyond possession and is unanarchist and statist.

[Noleaders]

@Noleaders: I'll step down from this argument for now. I still need to look more into the issue of property. On the one hand I find it hard to justify stamping out associations that use the lockean standard of property as long as every member of the association consents. On the other hand I can't shake the feeling that lockean property poses a threat to the freedom of the free society. I'll leave the argument for someone else to pick up on and do some more research. Just to make sure I don't miss anything because of my obvious bias what books did you read (If any) to lead you to the conclusions you came to?

Well i havent really come to any conclusion over lockean v mutualist rights but some links ive found interesting would be

Tucker
Proudhon
Spooner
Carson
Carson
Roderick Long's critique of Carson
Carson's rejoinder

[Noleaders]

Tell that to home-owners associations who will tear up your yard if you don't cede to their will... tell that to the various cattle and farm associations, all who exert political will. Indeed, the whole of politics started via the accumulation of resources. Be real here.

There are also examples of property owners who aren't politically connected. Politics may have began with via the accumulation of resources, but thats not a critique of lockean theory since it wasnt accumulated through means that would be considered legitimate to a lockean.

But unlike anarchists their "right to" something is defined solely by the contract that they utilized to acquire it. Lockeans then focus on contract accumulation rather than acquiring possessions.

The "right to" a possession is only defined by ones possessing it. How they got it is of course up to question given whatever system you chose (though I chose a system where there is nothing in the way of people acquiring possessions), but in the end there is no "contract" once possession is taken place.

No this isnt true, its a theory of natural rights that deems some things legitimate and some things illegitimate. The right to something, like possession rights, is appropriation through direct labour. The right of possession as you describe it IS whatever happens is fine if there's a contract as "The "right to" a possession is only defined by ones possessing it", ie. anythings legitimate as long as its within your power.

[|Y|]

Noleaders, before we go in circles, have you actually read the Treaties on government by Locke? Locke was a believer in social contract, and indeed, his type of property could *only* exist within a state. This is distinct from Proudhon who argued that property can only exist between individuals (ie, possession), in lieu of a state (thus "property is theft").

[Noleaders]

Noleaders, before we go in circles, have you actually read the Treaties on government by Locke? Locke was a believer in social contract, and indeed, his type of property could *only* exist within a state.

No, but ive read some stuff detailing his arguments. Ive also read a pretty strong rebuttal to it, from a lockean perspective. Its ironic to find you making an appeal to authority.

This is distinct from Proudhon who argued that property can only exist between individuals (ie, possession), in lieu of a state (thus "property is theft").

Yes, but didnt he also argue that individual property was a neccessary precondition of anti-statism (thus "property is freedom") he just set different rules about what property was to be considered legitimate.

[|Y|]

No, but ive read some stuff detailing his arguments. Ive also read a pretty strong rebuttal to it, from a lockean perspective. Its ironic to find you making an appeal to authority.

I'm not appealing to authority, but it doesn't surprise me that you haven't read it, ie, you don't actually know his views. If I am going to form a proper response I will have to show you his views.

Yes, but didnt he also argue that individual property was a neccessary precondition of anti-statism (thus "property is freedom") he just set different rules about what property was to be considered legitimate.

Proudhon argued that non-possessive property was theft (that is what everyone thinks of when they think of contract derived Lockean property). He then argued that possessive property was freedom. Indeed, Proudhon didn't differentiate between kings having non-possessive property and the wealthy having non-possessive property, a distinction between he and Locke, who believed that kings having lots of non-labor derived wealth and property which they themselves did not use was illegitimate, yet it was just fine under the guise of "voluntary interaction."

[thelastindividual]

No, but ive read some stuff detailing his arguments. Ive also read a pretty strong rebuttal to it, from a lockean perspective. Its ironic to find you making an appeal to authority.

I'm not appealing to authority, but it doesn't surprise me that you haven't read it, ie, you don't actually know his views. If I am going to form a proper response I will have to show you his views.

Could it not be possible that Locke was not himself a strict Lockean?

[Noleaders]

I'm not appealing to authority, but it doesn't surprise me that you haven't read it, ie, you don't actually know his views. If I am going to form a proper response I will have to show you his views.

Well time is unfortunately limited so i havent read every book yet. However ive read books and articles on how lockean property implies anti-statism, how his statism was completely unfounded and inconsistent and how its not incompatable with left libertarianism.

This is an appeal to authority because your simply stating locke's opinion as fact, which is like saying all anarchists hate jews and women cos we all descend from proudhon.

Proudhon argued that non-possessive property was theft (that is what everyone thinks of when they think of contract derived Lockean property). He then argued that possessive property was freedom. Indeed, Proudhon didn't differentiate between kings having non-possessive property and the wealthy having non-possessive property, a distinction between he and Locke, who believed that kings having lots of non-labor derived wealth and property which they themselves did not use was illegitimate, yet it was just fine under the guise of "voluntary interaction."

Im sure ive already answered the content of this.

[|Y|]

Well time is unfortunately limited so i havent read every book yet. However ive read books and articles on how lockean property implies anti-statism, how his statism was completely unfounded and inconsistent and how its not incompatable with left libertarianism.

Which books and articles?