fayfreethinkers.com

I live in a society that believes in ownership of land and makes laws accordingly. I pay money that I have earned to the bank for the title to this land (and house) and I pay taxes to the state to enforce that ownership. I am basically in the position of a favored Jew in Tsarist Russia (as long as the Jew showed up at Mass on Sunday, the Tsar didn't care what he did on Saturday) - as long as I follow the rules, society doesn't care if I believe in them.

Plunder being easier than production is not always true, but the myth of it keeps people stealing when an equal effort in the legitimate line would have gotten them further. However, plunder in smaller communities didn't happen that often. A combination of physical and social displeasure from the rest of society usually controlled the problem. It always controlled the problem in hunter-gatherer societies and even in societies that combined h-g with seasonal agriculture in varying locations (still nomadic, but with fixed seasonal homes). The amassing of stuff - especially a vastly unequal amassing of stuff - led to the "plunder" problems Bastiat wrote about - and trusted government ("the law") to deal with.

You are agreeing with me way too much lately.

I agree that you are like the favored Jew in Tzarist Russia - you hold property at the whim of the monopoly State legal system, and obtain certain benefits from your rulers. I agree with your next point, too, that plunder is not always easier than production. I agree with your small is beautiful sentiment, that smaller communities have generally less criminal behavior than large ones. (I confess that I was surprised at this, since I had just finished another post of yours that implied that the US breaking up into smaller units would result in more violence. I attribute this inconsistency to nationalist sentimentality.) I agree that, in smaller communities, "a combination of physical and social displeasure from the rest of society usually controlled the problem." I agree with your point that, "The amassing of stuff ... led to the plunder problems Bastiat wrote about." I might add that, the reason the State did not arise during the hunter-gatherer period was largely because there was so little accumulated wealth to plunder. They generally carried everything they owned, and lived from hand to mouth. It wasn't until the agri period that some people had enough accumulated stuff to make plunder worthwhile. Bastiat wanted "the law" to deal with plunder, but of course he never endorsed monopoly law, i.e. the State. He used "government" as Jefferson did, to mean voluntary organization of self-defense.

I don't know if you're putting words into Bastiat's mouth, but I know you're putting words into Jefferson's (dirty, unsanitary habit that is). Smaller communities handle internal problems better. Larger communities are needed to handle external ones. (Small communities deal with petty theft and even bullies quite well. They can't handle being attacked by a neighboring warlord's forces.) In fact, that's the basic reason groups began combining to larger societies - for protection from external forces. (And hunger-gatherers, while considerable more minimalist than I am, largely lived much healthier lives than any type of group developed since. Only now, that they have been pushed onto marginal lands by larger and more organized - notice I don't say superior - groups, are they showing health or social problems.)

The problem, other than the danger of larger, unbroken, external forces coming in and taking over, of breaking up the U.S. into smaller communities is the breakup process itself is destructive to the organism that is our society. At one time in your life you weighed under 50 pounds. Assuming that you were healthier at 50 pounds than you are at your current weight, should we chop you into 50-pound chunks to improve your health?

Barbara wrote:The problem, other than the danger of larger, unbroken, external forces coming in and taking over, of breaking up the U.S. into smaller communities is the breakup process itself is destructive to the organism that is our society.

We've discussed the efficacy of a defense-only military policy elsewhere, so I won't get into the ridiculous paranoid fear of Canada (or is it China?) invading Northwest Arkansas. As for your fear that a breakup of the State would be destructive to society, I would say the opposite; without the massive plunder, the costs of "imperial overstretch" and militarism, the massive incarceration of its own citizens, and other aggressions perpetrated by State, American society would be much better off. Just as most of former USSR is much better off. I suspect that you are equivocating "society" and "State" again. But I'm open to your argument. Why do you think breakup of the USEmpire would harm society?

Hogeye> He used "government" as Jefferson did, to mean voluntary organization of self-defense.
Barbara> I don't know if you're putting words into Bastiat's mouth, but I know you're putting words into Jefferson's

I refer of course to the Declaration of Independence, wherein Jefferson wrote that men have certain "unalienable rights," and "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." There is nothing here about territorial monopoly being necessary; on the contrary, Jefferson requires any legitimate government to be by "consent of the governed." This applies to a PDA (private defense agency) paid for on an insurance basis just as much as it does to a modern State. In this document at least, Jefferson uses "government" in a general non-statist sense. Sometimes I use the designation "Nockian government" since Nock was quite explicit in this distinction between "government" and "State." But I'm afraid that this would be lost on most people, who have never heard of Albert Jay Nock let alone read his famous book "Our Enemy the State." Most people I talk to have read the Dec of Ind.

Because very few (if any) societies in modern America are even potentially self-supporting, and they depend on government-owned and maintained transportation (among other things) breaking the U.S. up into small groups would be a bad idea. Some parts of the U.S. are so highly populated they are totally dependent on surrounding communities - and the government-maintained infrastructure - that you wouldn't be returning to some mythical John Wayne movie existence, but more along the "Mad Max" or that movie my son told me about years ago that had Kurt Russell trying to rescue somebody out of a domed-off NYC inhabited totally by gangs and criminals.

I'm not particularly worried about Canada, although they might like to review the "54-40 or fight" decision of umpty years back. Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas, but I can see Mexico deciding that the Rio Grande valley (along with the southern sections of New Mexico and Arizona) really should come back "home" if the U.S. broke up into units too small to stop their army.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:...but more along the "Mad Max" or that movie my son told me about years ago that had Kurt Russell trying to rescue somebody out of a domed-off NYC inhabited totally by gangs and criminals.

DOUG
That was 1981's "Escape from New York," co-starring Ernest Borgnine and Adrienne Barbeau. Also Lee Van Cleef, Donald Pleasence (as the President of the U.S.), and scientologict Isaac Hayes. Don't bother with the sequel, "Escape from L.A."

New York wasn't domed, but walled off and used as a prison. Convicts were sent there and could do whatever they wanted to with each other, unsupervised. They just couldn't leave.


Hogeye's America. Free market out the wazoo.

Maybe it's just that I'm from Texas, but I can see Mexico deciding that the Rio Grande valley (along with the southern sections of New Mexico and Arizona) really should come back "home" if the U.S. broke up into units too small to stop their army.

I'm from the Rio Grande Valley. My parents live there still, as does one of my brothers. The border is mostly illusory, for commerce and immigration. Don't get me started...

Barbara wrote:Because very few (if any) societies in modern America are even potentially self-supporting, and they depend on government-owned and maintained transportation (among other things) breaking the U.S. up into small groups would be a bad idea.

Fallacy of government solipotence. You assume that commerce can only be done under government control or supervision, that roads and transportation can only be maintained by govt, and so on. History disproves that. I predict the opposite after the US breaks up - that there will be more trade enabling more benefits from division of labor and comparitive advantage. Why? Because the central State's regulatory restraints and quotas and tariffs and special privilege to cronies (monopoly, subsidies, etc.) would be gone.

As Doug pointed out, in "Escape from New York" NYC was a prison; the central govt prevented free trade by New Yorkers.

Barbara, your invasion paranoia is bizarre - I'd thought that was mainly a right-wing thing. In real life, places that allow freedom of trade rarely get invaded. Think Hong Kong in the century before China took over. A little bitty island that traded with all, China could easily have invaded. They didn't. It wasn't in their interest to destroy their major source of foreign exchange. Hell, they owned the biggest bank in Hong Kong - the Bank of China. I think, Barbara, that you underestimate "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none" as a defense policy. Also, an armed populace.

Hong Kong during the century before China took over was part of the British Empire - protected by the British fleet, except for the 5+ years it was controlled by Japan after the Japanese attacked it in the late 1930s.

It's pretty obvious that China could have taken Hong Kong if it wanted. Other examples of neutral traders are Switzerland and Costa Rica, and the US before it went imperialist in 1898.

China, like Russia, has always been the big lumbering country it was not a good idea to attack (their version of partisans win every time on home ground) but aren't really dangerous - for all their threats - to anyone else. I'm talking militarily here - China is becoming a large economic threat, but that is largely because we "gave them out head for washing" when we borrowed all that money from them.

Switzerland only became safe after it unified and had a big enough population to guard all the mountain passes. Caesar took them 2 millinea ago, and the Austrian Empire had them about 600 years ago. (Remember the William Tell story?)

As a philosophy degree holder with anarchist sympathies, I find anarcho-capitalism a cruel joke. This is the big beef I have with Hogeye's philosophy.
Nozick, perhaps better than anyone else, shows quite clearly in Anarchy State and Utopia that any contractual scheme of justification for property is only valid if you have a morally defensible scheme for the initial acquisition of property. That has never been done. Locke comes closest with his schemes i.e. Labor mixing theory etc., but as Nozick himself remarkably points out, those theories are unsound. All initial property claims were unjust appropraitions that rested on FORCE. A basic funciton of the State, in its liberal democratic manifestation, is to provide force to justify property claims. So you can see how I have a very difficult time accepting anything like Anarcho-Capitalism.
Can you do what Nozick himself says has not adequately been done and provide a moral justification for the intital acquisition of property?? Who, I would like to know, can legitimately own, say, the Moon? The question is absurd of course. As absurd, if you can temper your training, as owning property in land here on earth. If ever someone does claim to own the moon, it will be backed, and ultimately legitimized by some sort of force. And thus, unjustifiably so.
Tred

Tony - that's what I've been saying. You can't own real property. Any claim to owning real property has to be backed up by the societal force we call the State. I'm not an anarchist. I think government/state is necessary to limit corporate/elitist/theocratic power and to accomplish societal "goods" (general welfare) that are more efficiently done as a whole rather than piecemeal. I don't want government control of things better done locally. (Government upkeep of roads, railroad tracks, power grids, etc - but not the individuals or companies using the communication/transportation systems. Government inspection/regulation guaranteeing a safe food supply - but not government supplying the food.) I suppose that makes me a socialist. I prefer elected government because there's a chance of getting somebody working for the people's good that way. Any other form of government leaves the general welfare to the whim of the governing power. But yes, anarcho-capitalism is a cruel joke or a fantasy based on "Hollywood history."

Tony wrote:Nozick, perhaps better than anyone else, shows quite clearly in Anarchy State and Utopia that any contractual scheme of justification for property is only valid if you have a morally defensible scheme for the initial acquisition of property.

Right.

Tony wrote:Locke comes closest with his schemes i.e. Labor mixing theory etc., but as Nozick himself remarkably points out, those theories are unsound.

Here you are mistaken. Nozick points out some interesting questions about the Lockean theory (p. 194 "Locke's Theory of Acquisition"), but never remotely implies they are unsound. Nozick, in the subsequent section, does show some problems with the Lockean proviso, but that proviso is pretty much rejected by modern anarcho-capitalists.

Tony wrote:All initial property claims were unjust appropraitions that rested on FORCE.

This is not a claim made by Nozick; it is a Georgist claim that (probably) Barbara believes. Nozick was skeptical of all known original acquisition theories. To wit:

We should note that it is not only persons favoring private property who need a theory of how property rights legitimately originate. Those believing in collective property, for example those believing that a group of persons living in an area jointly own the territory, or its mineral resources, also must provide a theory of how such property rights arise... - Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 178

Back to Nozick's comments regarding the "complexity" of entitlement theory (a theory he approves in the book BTW); his objections seem rather weak to me. He asks "What are the boundaries of what labor is mixed with?" He seems to confuse himself with the "labor" formulation; if he instead concentrates on use, his questions seem tractible. I.e. the rough boundaries can in practice be deduced from the use, the type of purposeful action, that the original user makes of it. Similarly, his pouring tomato juice into the ocean example of "mixing one's labor" seems frivolous when seen in the light of purposeful action. If he's trying to feed clams with tomato juice, then the clam bed (or at least the part capable of being nourished by tomato juice) would seem a reasonable boundary. Note that the Austrian economists like Rothbard would catch Nozick's frivolity immediately, since they take human action as the basis of their thought.

Tony wrote:Can you do what Nozick himself says has not adequately been done and provide a moral justification for the initial acquisition of property?

As a soft propertarian, I do not make such a strong claim. I claim that private property is morally permissable, in the sense that it does not violate anyone's self-ownership. IMO property is a social convention - basically based on whatever the neighbors think. I do believe that generally private property is most efficient and fair, and leads to greater wealth production than other systems. E.g. I would expect a sticky property society to prosper (and even have better wildlife preserves) than a geoist society. But this is simply a market prediction. Anarchism is all about competing property systems, organization systems, rights-protection systems, etc. May the best systems win out.

Barbara wrote:Any claim to owning real property has to be backed up by the societal force we call the State.

If Barbara dropped the last four words, we'd agree. She has a fatal case of government solipotence syndrome, erroneously thinking that only a State can protect property. This is especially strange, since she is a history teacher and history is rife with examples of property unprotected by States. Property springs spontaneously from society; property (sticky, geoist, or whatever) preceeds State. Why a historian wouldn't know this is beyond me!

For more on property, see the chapter in my book Against Authority: What is Property?

When property claims are enforced by a non-state entity (war lords come to mind), the title is only considered valid by the group claiming it. Fights over the validity of property claims are as old as societies that claim real property ownership. When the State steps in, while it enforces what I consider to be a nonsensical concept (ownership of land), it also creates a mechanism for non-violent claims and transfers of property ownership. (Also one of the reasons the State is involved in marriage, the spousal line being one of the legitimate transfers of property.)

Tony wrote:
[b]Nozick, perhaps better than anyone else, shows quite clearly in Anarchy State and Utopia that any contractual scheme of justification for property is only valid if you have a morally defensible scheme for the initial acquisition of property.[/b]

Right.

Tony wrote:
Locke comes closest with his schemes i.e. Labor mixing theory etc., but as Nozick himself remarkably points out, those theories are unsound.

Here you are mistaken. Nozick points out some interesting questions about the Lockean theory (p. 194 "Locke's Theory of Acquisition"), but never remotely implies they are unsound.

Mistaken?? Regarding the Labor mixing theory, Nozick offers his famous Tomato juice in the sea counterargument (Pg 175), widely considered in philosophy a thorough rebuttal of Locke. You even cite it. He then briefly discusses value added theory as a justification for acquisition of property, but concludes, again on page 175, that "No workable or coherent value-added property scheme has yet been devised, and any such scheme presumably would fall to objections (similar to those) that fell the theory of Henry James". Virtually every credible political philosopher agrees with Nozick here. There has yet to be developed a plausibly justified theory of the initial acquisition of property.
You allude to all of this with your quote from pg 178. But my claim was that Nozick destroyed Locke's labor mixing theory. And yes, he is right, collectivists as well as Capitalists need a workable theory, which neither has, or else Proudhon is right when he says "Property is theft".

Back to Nozick's comments regarding the "complexity" of entitlement theory (a theory he approves in the book BTW);

Right, I am not talking about entitlement theory generally, but premise one specifically.
Pg 151 he lays out his formula for the entitlement theory, premise one is crucial for the theory to work:
"A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding."

Now, show me, and everyone else in political philosophy, how he justifies initial acquisition. If you cannot, bye bye entitlement theory.

IMO property is a social convention - basically based on whatever the neighbors think.

Well, we have some common ground there. But I wonder, how exactly, this fits with your defense of Capitalism.

I do believe that generally private property is most efficient and fair, and leads to greater wealth production than other systems.

That is a utilitarian claim for justifying property. Libertarians, especially Nozick who had the shocking audacity to make such a hyperbolic statement as: "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor"(pg 169) argue that property is some sort of natural right, not utilitarian. This is another topic of course. I won't vent my loathing of utilitarianism here (Doug and Darrel and I once already went rounds on that one).
But it is most interesting that you make this utilitarian claim via property. Why then, do you consider yourself Libertarian? And why do you cite Locke's labor mixing theory on your webpage as a tacit justification for property when you describe "sticky property"??? Perhaps I totally misunderstand your positions. I certainly find them incoherent.
Why such a defender of Capitalism if you don't have a theory justifying initial acquisition of Property? What am I missing??

DAR
Interesting. The world's smallest country up for sale. Someone could buy it and and experiment with novel forms of government (or lact thereof):

***
World's smallest country up for sale

By Paul Majendie Mon Jan 8, 1:58 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - For sale: the world's smallest country with its own flag, stamps, currency and passports.

Apply to Prince Michael of Sealand if you want to run your own storm-tossed nation -- even if it is just a wartime fort perched on two concrete towers in the North Sea.

Built in World War Two as an anti-aircraft base against German bombers, the derelict platform was taken over 40 years ago by retired army major Paddy Roy Bates who went to live there with his family.

He declared the platform, perched seven miles off the east coast of England just outside Britain's territorial waters, to be the principality of Sealand.

The self-styled Prince Roy adopted a flag, chose a national anthem and minted silver and gold coins as its currency.

The family saw off an attempt by the Royal Navy to evict them and also an attempt in 1978 by a group of German and Dutch businessmen to seize Sealand by force.

"I was held prisoner out there for three or four days and then managed to get back to England," Roy's son Michael told BBC Radio on Monday.

"I slid down a rope out of a helicopter with my father and a couple of comrades and took the place back against armed opposition. It was quite a high point in my life," he said.

Prince Michael, whose 85-year-old father now lives in Spain, said his family had been approached by estate agents with clients "who wanted a bit more than a bit of real estate, they wanted autonomy."

Asked what were the delights of living on Sealand, the 54-year-old prince said "The neighbours are very quiet. There is a good sea view."

"There is no jurisdiction by any other country in the world," he said, suggesting it could be a base for online gambling or offshore banking.

Calling it a cross between a house and a ship, the prince acknowledged it was not the world's most picturesque country, boasting as it does two large concrete towers with eight rooms in each tower.

"It is fairly bleak," he conceded. ""But it is quite pleasant sitting inside in the warm and watching the horrendous weather roaring past the double-glazed windows."

So what did he expect to get for Sealand?

"We shall see," Prince Michael said. "I will listen to anybody who wants to talk."

link



Wiki has a nice article.

Paint it bright yellow and change the national anthem to "We All Live in a Yellow Submarine". That's not a country, no matter what the current owner calls it. It's a wealthy person's toy. There is no LAND. There's not enough room on that thing to grow - even in hothouses - food for a large family, much less a "populace" (and that's presupposing all protein comes from the sea). Without wealth from some outside source to pay for almost 100% imports, you're talking fish and seaweed for food, clothing, and energy.

On the other hand, any of the top 1% of family incomes in America could buy it and "offshore" their wealth to not pay ANY income tax. (We need a law saying you have to actually live - or with corporations have a working "home" office - where you claim to live to escape taxation. Actually, I think we already have a law that says that - it just isn't enforced.) Wouldn't that make a nice little "country home" for Alice Walton? How about Don Tyson? The Bushes, of course, could use it to escape war criminal trials. No extradition from their own country - and isn't that what they've always wanted? (Their own country)

Does a "country" have to be self supporting? Lots of them aren't. Interesting how this challenges our standard definitions.
This "country" would be rather easy for anyone to conquer so I don't think rich folks would even feel safe there if they were doing things neighbor countries didn't want them to (drug manufactor etc).

A country has to start out self supporting. Many of them aren't now and haven't been for some time, but that's population growth over carrying capacity. Britain even as long ago as WWII exceeded her carrying capacity by about 20 million (the "island" could feed 30 million, but the population in 1938 was 50 million, with London at 1 million the largest city in the world) - that's why it was so important to keep the sea lanes open - the "Battle of the Atlantic" as Churchill called it. Even the Principality of Monaco, which is totally surrounded by France and totally depends on its casino income to exist, started out as a self-supporting city-state (farmlands surrounding the city proper supplied it with food and materials to make clothing, furniture, etc).

As to ability to defend itself - by ancient standards "Sealand" is quite capable of doing that, with a small army - if the seige didn't last longer than whatever food and ammunition they could stockpile (and in ancient days it would have been likely to, since the attacking forces would their own supply line issues - and the instability of sea storms in ships as opposed to a fixed site/island. It's a great defensive position. What it couldn't stand is modern weaponry literally blowing it out of the water. For that it would have to depend on a "greater" nation to protect it.

Barbara wrote:When property claims are enforced by a non-state entity (war lords come to mind), the title is only considered valid by the group claiming it.

American pioneers come to mind; I don't associate "war lords" with property protection. You seem to overlook that "the title is only considered valid by the group claiming it" is just as true of State protection agencies as non-state protection agencies. Both types attempt to "create a mechanism for non-violent claims and transfers of property ownership." The critical question is whether it is better to have one monopoly firm based on brute force (a State) to fulfill this function, or many competing firms.

Tony wrote:Regarding the Labor mixing theory, Nozick offers his famous Tomato juice in the sea counterargument (Pg 175), widely considered in philosophy a thorough rebuttal of Locke.

I already gave my reason for rejecting the frivolous tomato juice example - that it overlooks the telos of use. I agree with Nozick that the added value notion is weak. Here's what Rothbard has to say in The Ethics of Liberty:

A tangential but important point on compensation: adopting Locke’s unfortunate “proviso,” on homesteading property rights in unused land, Nozick declares that no one may appropriate unused land if the remaining population who desire access to land are “worse off.” But again, how do we know if they are worse off or not? In fact, Locke’s proviso may lead to the outlawry of all private ownership of land, since one can always say that the reduction of available land leaves everyone else, who could have appropriated the land, worse off. In fact, there is no way of measuring or knowing when they are worse off or not. And even if they are, I submit that this, too, is their proper assumption of risk. Everyone should have the right to appropriate as his property previously unowned land or other resources. If latecomers are worse off, well then that is their proper assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer a vast frontier in the United States, and there is no point in crying over the fact. In fact, we can generally achieve as much “access” as we want to these resources by paying a market price for them; but even if the owners refused to sell or rent, that should be their right in a free society. Even Locke could nod once in a while. - Rothbard, "Robert Nozick And The Immaculate Conception Of The State"

Hogeye> IMO property is a social convention - basically based on whatever the neighbors think.

Tony> Well, we have some common ground there. But I wonder, how exactly, this fits with your defense of Capitalism.

Those that believe that the homesteading principle is "in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition" have the right to set up, join, or opt out of such societies. Geoists (and others) who assume that "everyone" owns natural resources, similarly may set up societies conforming to thier vision. Anarchism!

Tony wrote:Libertarians, especially Nozick who had the shocking audacity to make such a hyperbolic statement as: "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor"(pg 169) argue that property is some sort of natural right, not utilitarian.

Property is a natural right - "everyone" agrees with that. (Those who claim to be against property, upon close examination, are really only objecting to certain property schemes. E.g. Anarcho-communists support property in the hands of certain "blessed" collectives.) The debate is about how to define just property. I think that Hoppe's "argumentation ethic" proves that everyone agrees implicitly to some sort of property, in the general sense of a convention about who has jurisdiction over what - "what is mine and what is thine." One can also make a contractarian case, that by entering society one implicitly agrees to not rob or kill others. The telos of property is to solve the scarcity problem (without violence.)

I don't understand why you would disagree that theft is essentially robbing someone of their labor time. That doesn't seem hyperbolic at all.

BTW, Proudhon's "possession" is a type of property. It differs very little from sticky (neo-Lockean) property. Both have the same homesteading principle (i.e. assume Nozick #1). Both allow transfer by gift/trade per Nozick #2. The main difference is in the abandonment criteria - something Nozick doesn't consider. Possession property has a short-time abandonment criteria, while sticky property has a longer time threshold for abandonment. IOW to keep ownership of possession property you more or less have to use it continuously, while with sticky property you more or less retain ownership until you consent to gift/trade it. For details, see my What is Property chapter in Against Authority. A little-known Proudhon tidbit - everyone knows he wrote "Property is Theft", but many don't know that he also wrote "Property is Liberty." He considered property to be a bulwark against State power.

Regarding Sealand: I wonder if HavenCo, the data haven is still operating there. It is/was a place to store data and run servers not subject to statist law.