[Someneck]

Someneck - you raise a very interesting point and I agree with you. I haven't given up on anarchism though but what you say about entitlement vs charity is correct so I am inspired to work out a way that an anarchy can do entitled welfare without resorting to either charity or coerced tax funding, I think it can be done, I have a few ideas, but not ready to publish just yet.

Heck I don't think I can claim to have influenced anyone ever, so I am grateful for your comment

[libertarian_4_life]

Either humans can own natural resources or they cannot. If they cannot, we are in big trouble. We need natural resources to survive. Without ownership we cannot legitimately use the resources we require to go on living.

Do you own the air you breathe? I do not own any air, yet I still breathe.
I don't need property rights to legitimatize my breathing of air. Maybe you do, but me and billions of other people dont.

If humans can own natural resources, the only question which remains is which humans. You seem to advocate a position whereby all natural resources (or is it only land? if so, why?) are owned in common by all humanity. Or society. But then we must ask why? If I went to the trouble, risk and cost of identifying a natural resource that nobody before me bothered with, and started a long-term project of making use of that resource (whether it is land or something buried under it), why does a newborn child in China have as much rights to it as me?

1. Because that Chinese child is a human.
2. Libertarians are obligated not to initiate aggression against other humans (without their consent).
3. "First come / first serve" and "I was here first" and "I discovered it first therefore it's exclusively mine" and "finders / keepers" are not principles of libertarianism. It is a principle of some other ideologies (Gerontocracy? capitalism?)
4. In a fair capitalist world, the Chinese child has a right to own land. Likewise, you also have a right to own land.
4a. Earth has finite resources which means: the amount of water, land, and air per person will decrease as population increases.
5. The year is now 2012, not 1912 or 1812. Most of the valuable land in the world is already owned or controlled.
6. Due to increasing world population, either Earth should enlarge, or landowners should relinquish ownership of some of their lands.

Since nobody bothered making use of that resource before me, in what sense is starting to use it "theft"?

Theft (may) happen if you prohibit other people from using the natural resources which you have just started using.
If the resource is not privatized, then I would say, it's not theft as I described.

1. Privatization of land,water,air,etc. means that current and future humans may be denied free access to privatized lands,water,air (including recently discovered resources).
Discovering resources on unused land is wonderful but I hardly think such a minor feat deserves you exclusive ownership rights.
2. All land is not equal. Your land may contain more resources than other lands.
3. This unfair system can be remedied by redistribution of land OR by compensation to non-land owners and to owners of less valuable lands.

If homeless squatters come to your lands, and you forcibly evict them, then you may possibly be guilty of violating the non-initiation of aggression principle.
I propose that this matter be resolved via government leglislation which grants land/water ownership (or compensation) to non-landowners.

I suggested elsewhere that we can root libertarian property right theory on a formulation of the Non Aggression Principle according to which it is simply wrong to use physical force to interfere with another person or his ongoing projects. Property rights are simply a convenient encapsulation of that principle. When I clear, till and sow a field, I have initiated a long-term project of using that field. As long as my project was peaceful (e.g. I didn't dispossess anybody who was previously using the field), the NAP asserts that nobody else has a right to interfere with my project. And since working the land requires exclusive access, normal property rights in land ensue.

If the nature of the project is such that others can use the resource together with me (e.g. when I use a path to get to the river), what results isn't full ownership, but merely easement (or use-rights). I cannot exclude others from the path, but neither can others exclude me from it.

What if the world human population is 100+ trillion and 100 people simultaneously want to initiate a a farming project on the same land?
How do we resolve this? I suggest we divide up the land as small as possible or, in some cases, pay compensation to the losers (non-land owners).
After land is shared, people would be free to keep, lease,sell, abandon,etc. their lands (however this would only be valid until the next round of land redistribution).
Your ideas would work well in a world with almost unlimited resouces and small world population. Unfortunately, Earth is not such a world.
There are a lot of landlords in the world who think they have the right to injure or kill trespassers. Many landlords will refuse any other ownership claims to any lands which they hold title on.
I agree that it would be nice if we could "just all get along" and fairly share resources but I think it would be more practical for government to enforce land redistribution.

To give a concrete example, even if the Earth belongs to everybody, why is it that the Australian government and not The International Committee of the Red Cross or the International Olympic Committee or the Catholic Church that gets to determine who and how the riches of the outback will be used?

The Australian government can determine ownership of natural resources simply because it has the power to do it.
The catholic church, red cross, olympic committees lack sufficient power to control Australia, and may not even be interested in outback resources.
When I wrote "earth belongs to everyone", that is just my opinion. I am not quoting law.

When you eat dinner in a group and someone says "all this food belongs to us", it does not mean everyone tries to re-eat the same food.
It means, we divide the food into smaller, equal (or almost equal) portions.

[Someneck]

.





I can't think of anything worse than being on a transatlantic flight with only one book; a libertarian book such as that described, the contents of which are so cold and anti-human

...Libertarianism - the product of a "me" mind

Thatcher on steroids

[libertarian_4_life]

It is a far more christian way to proceed than the US way of bankrupting people and taking their life savings and their houses just because they fell sick - that is sticking the boot in on top of the sickness. That is repugnant

I agree that it is very repugnant, but not a surprise.
The reasons why it happens:

1. Fractional-reserve lending + central bank = rollercoaster economy for the masses and almost unlimited loans/bailouts for big banks and their cronies.
Nations which employ fractional reserve lending (on a large scale) are "bubble economies".

2. Land ownership is a privilege (and not a right) in most countries. Too many unfortunate people are evicted from their homes and have no where to go.

3. Strict government regulation of the medical industry severely reduces the number of hospitals and medical staff in the USA.
Granting "free", unlimited healthcare to every resident or citizen is a good way to bankrupt the USA even sooner.

In my opinion, the only long-term workable solution is to deregulate the medical industry so that less qualified medical staff are permitted to perform medical procedures.
There is too little competition in the US medical industry. Prices are too high. Medical industry has no incentive to lower prices brcause 1) competition is very limited and 2) politicians are quick to pay whatever hospitals demand. "We just need more money" is an easy way out which incompetent politicians choose because they dont have any better ideas or because they want votes or because they are bribed or corrupted. Obamacare is a sell-out to insurance companies. Insurance companies are "middle-men" and part of the reason why health care is so expensive.

[Someneck]

In my opinion, the only long-term workable solution is to deregulate the medical industry so that less qualified medical staff are permitted to perform medical procedures.

I don't want a Sarah Palin coming near me with a knife

What Bevan did in the UK was to "stuff their mouths with gold"

Then when they have signed up, slash their salaries

That way you get proficient doctors on a fraction of the salary

It worked

[Eran]

[quote=libertarian_4_life"]I don't need property rights to legitimatize my breathing of air. Maybe you do, but me and billions of other people dont.[/quote]
Air is not a scarce resource. Neither is sunshine. The entire discussion regarding ownership of natural resources applies to scarce resources, i.e. resources which come in a limited supply, and where one person's consumption or use impacts that of others. In other words, resources such that there is a potential conflict over their use. If there is a potential conflict, a peaceful society requires mechanisms for determining who can legitimately make decisions. That person is the owner.

2. Libertarians are obligated not to initiate aggression against other humans (without their consent).
3. "First come / first serve" and "I was here first" and "I discovered it first therefore it's exclusively mine" and "finders / keepers" are not principles of libertarianism.

You got the first point correctly. Which is precisely why you are wrong on the second point. If I am the first to use a resource, using that resources involves no initiation of aggression against any other humans. Hence it is allowed.

Having started to use that resource (something we just concluded I am allowed to do), the second person who comes and wants to use the resource (or a group of people, or the state) would be initiating force against me. Hence that would be forbidden. So by being the first to use the resource, I am effectively its owner, as no other person is allowed (based on libertarian principles) to mess up with me.

4. In a fair capitalist world, the Chinese child has a right to own land. Likewise, you also have a right to own land.

I don't know what "fair" means. Despite repeated requests, I am yet to find anybody willing to define the term. Please feel free.

Nobody has a right to own anything other than their own body. Libertarian principles (specifically NAP) which you seem to recognise merely state that you are not allowed to initiate force (i.e. use aggression) against others. Where did you get the "right to own land" from?

4a. Earth has finite resources which means: the amount of water, land, and air per person will decrease as population increases.

Why limit yourself to Earth? Humanity many well be able to use the virtually infinite resources of the solar system (not to mention the rest of the universe) well before Earth's resources are exhausted. The quantity of water, land and air available on Earth is virtually unlimited, and every sign suggests population size will stabilise at a level that can easily provide excellent standard of living to everybody.

5. The year is now 2012, not 1912 or 1812. Most of the valuable land in the world is already owned or controlled.

That was also the case in 1912 and 1812. You see, the lands of the great plains, for example, wasn't considered valuable in 1812. It was too far from "civilisation", and the cost of getting there and back (not to mention the risk) too great.

In every generation, most of the valuable land (and other resources) is already owned or controlled. Technological advances and other changes gradually make more land (and other resources) available. At any point in time, one can identify marginal land whose value just starts to exceed the cost of making use of it. That is the land that is open to homesteading.

In fact, if we considered "owned or controlled" by libertarian (rather than government) terms, most of the land in the world isn't justly owned. Most of the land (or at least very large fraction of it) are controlled by governments, but are unimproved, and thus not justly owned by anybody. Even Hong Kong, one of the densest countries in the world, is full of open, undeveloped land.

6. Due to increasing world population, either Earth should enlarge, or landowners should relinquish ownership of some of their lands.

How about we start with the world's governments, and all the land they unjustly control?

1. Privatization of land,water,air,etc. means that current and future humans may be denied free access to privitized lands,water,air (including recently discovered resources).

True. But so what? "Theft" has a very specific meaning - it is the taking of something that belongs to somebody else. Unused land isn't owned by anybody, so taking it isn't "theft".

Prior to the first time the land is used, it is open to homesteading (or conversely to non-exclusive use) by anybody. That's because at that stage using the land doesn't involve aggression. Once that land has been put into exclusive use (i.e. the kind of use that naturally requires exclusive access), its use by others would necessarily involve aggression, and is thus forbidden.

If homeless squatters come to your lands, and you forcibly evict them, then you may be guilty of violating the non-aggression principle.

And, by the same logic, if a hungry person (or any person, really) comes and grabs my food, or picks apples from my tree and I forcibly stop them, am I also being aggressive? How about if they enter my living room and squat on the sofa? Am I allowed to evict them then? Or should we prohibit locks altogether?

What if the world human population is 100+ trillion and 100 people simultaneously want to initiate a a farming project on the same land?

Both are highly unlikely. I do recognise an emergency exception to the normal libertarian principles. If 10 people landed on a small island, and one ran first and found and put to use the only source of fresh water on the island, I would recognise the need to adjust the normal calling to give the person exclusive access.

But Earth is huge, humans only use a small fraction of its land area, no critical resources are in any danger of being monopolised, and emergency exception is far from applying.

Your ideas would work well in a world with almost unlimited resouces and small world population. Unfortunately, Earth is not such a world.

My point is that for practical purposes it is. Earth is more like an unlimited resources world than it is like a small island.

The Australian government can determine ownership of natural resources simply because it has the power to do it.

So might makes right? They have the power, therefore they have the right to do so?


Setting aside principled arguments, I need to mention that obsession with land is quite anachronistic. As human societies evolved from agricultural to industrial, the significance of land has diminished. In agricultural societies, land is the most important resource. In industrial (and even more so in knowledge-based economies), land has a quickly-diminishing value.

With the exception of city centres, land is relatively cheap. It would be even cheaper if governments removed artificial restrictions on land-use, and stopped monopolising unimproved lands.

2. Land ownership is a privilege (and not a right) in most countries. Too many unfortunate people are evicted from their homes and have no where to go.

Of course they have places to go. What they lack is not standing space or living space. What they lack is a house (which costs money to build) near a city (where land is always going to be scarce).

Let me give you an example. I used to live in Plano, TX, a suburb of Dallas. Plano has no high-rises. Most people live in single-family homes. The city's area is about 185 km2 (72 sq miles), and its population is about 270,000. With the same density, the entire population of Earth could fit in less than the area of Australia, or about 3% of the land area of the world.

So the issue isn't that there is no space for everybody. The issue is that too many people want to live near city centres. There is no choice but to ration who gets to live in those desired locations.

[libertarian_4_life]

We live in a finite world.
Unlimited high quality health care is impossible.
Unlimited high quality anything is impossible.

We cant all live in mansions. We cant all have "the best doctors and lawyers".
Some people will have better doctors and lawyers than others.

I dont understand why leftists are so resistant to allowing people to have a choice.
Legalize unregulated healthcare and let people choose the cheap healthcare option.
If you don't want to use unregulated or self-regulated hospitals, then dont.
Then only visit government regulated and government approved hospitals.
Stop forcing government regulation on peaceful people.

[Someneck]

We live in a finite world.
Unlimited high quality health care is impossible.
Unlimited high quality anything is impossible.

We cant all live in mansions. We cant all have "the best doctors and lawyers".
Some people will have better doctors and lawyers than others.

I dont understand why leftists are so resistant to allowing people to have a choice.
Legalize unregulated healthcare and let people choose the cheap healthcare option.
If you don't want to use unregulated or self-regulated hospitals, then dont.
Then only visit government regulated and government approved hospitals.
Stop forcing government regulation on peaceful people.

Forget the world (that always goes down well in the US)

take it country by country

Why cant all Americans have really good healthcare which is provided on a non profit basis and paid for through general taxation

It would cost 50% of what it costs now and cover everyone on the basis of need

Keep it simple and say why not

It works superbly in most other 1st world countries - and those people would NEVER chose to go to the US system

They would be horrified at the predatory medical system which keeps Americans in chains and working until they drop




.

[libertarian_4_life]

Having started to use that resource (something we just concluded I am allowed to do), the second person who comes and wants to use the resource (or a group of people, or the state) would be initiating force against me. Hence that would be forbidden. So by being the first to use the resource, I am effectively its owner, as no other person is allowed (based on libertarian principles) to mess up with me.

In what way is the second person using force against YOU? because you are first and he is not first?
You first draw water from a lake and therefore no one else may draw water from the same lake without your permission? Is this what you believe?
Which libertarian principle says "the first resource user has an exclusive right to continue using the resource"? I am not aware of such a principle.
Do you think it's wrong to initiate aggression against property?
If I steal or damage a car, who have I wronged? The human owner? or the car itself? or both? or neither?

Libertarianism = do not initiate aggression
Propertarianism = Property is paramount. Freedom is property. I own, therefore I am. (or something like that)

John Locke
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

Locke is saying that anything you "remove out of the state that Nature hath provided" is your property.

What you REMOVE from Nature, according to Locke, is yours to own.
But what you dont remove from nature is not your property.
Claiming ownership of unused resources still in Nature is un-Locke, and to me, is unlibertarian.

John Locke
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

Locke is saying that appropriation of land/water and making enclosures are not a prejudice to any other man ...IF... there is still enough land/water for other people to use.
And by use, I am sure he means freely use.

Unfortunately, most libertarians seem to be landlords who twist libertarianism because they dont want to give up any land rights.
Capitalism is a great system if you are fortunate enough to own land. If you dont, then you have to beg,borrow,buy,rent, steal,kill to get land.
There is no need for that if landowners would freely share their lands.

[libertarian_4_life]

Nobody has a right to own anything other than their own body. Libertarian principles (specifically NAP) which you seem to recognise merely state that you are not allowed to initiate force (i.e. use aggression) against others. Where did you get the "right to own land" from?

"right to own land" is a capitalist concept. Other ideologies also believe land ownership. You are right. It's not a libertarian principle.
That's why I wrote "In a fair capitalist world, the Chinese child has a right to own land. Likewise, you also have a right to own land."

Why limit yourself to Earth? Humanity many well be able to use the virtually infinite resources of the solar system (not to mention the rest of the universe) well before Earth's resources are exhausted. The quantity of water, land and air available on Earth is virtually unlimited, and every sign suggests population size will stabilise at a level that can easily provide excellent standard of living to everybody.

You are free to leave Earth if you want. I hope you are not suggesting that landless people ought to leave earth if free land on Earth is not available.

In fact, if we considered "owned or controlled" by libertarian (rather than government) terms, most of the land in the world isn't justly owned. Most of the land (or at least very large fraction of it) are controlled by governments, but are unimproved, and thus not justly owned by anybody. Even Hong Kong, one of the densest countries in the world, is full of open, undeveloped land.

I agree that government owned land should be shared among the people. But I dont make an exception for privately owned lands.

6. Due to increasing world population, either Earth should enlarge, or landowners should relinquish ownership of some of their lands.
How about we start with the world's governments, and all the land they unjustly control?

It's not a bad idea but I have doubts. If government land is auctioned off, it may be acquired by land profiteers who will resell that land for profit.
The point is to give the land to the people (especially people without land or with barren lands).
giving the land away to homesteaders is better than nothing, but I dont see that as a perfect solution. It works ok until they run out of government owned land.

And, by the same logic, if a hungry person (or any person, really) comes and grabs my food, or picks apples from my tree and I forcibly stop them, am I also being aggressive? How about if they enter my living room and squat on the sofa? Am I allowed to evict them then? Or should we prohibit locks altogether?

That apple was picked by a human or by a human operated machine. According to John Locke, the apple is own-able property.
If your house is unoccupied (temporarily or permanently), then I think it should be legal to squat on the sofa.
However, damaging the house (or stealing the house) should be illegal (if the house is not abandoned). If the home is abandoned, then forceful (damaging) entry is ok, in my opinion.
When you return to your home, you can ask the squatters to stop tresspassing and also pay for any damages and for any stuff they used.
If the squatters refuse to leave, then you may remove them.

So might makes right? They have the power, therefore they have the right to do so?

No, of course it does not make it right. You did not ask if it is right or not. I said nothing about it being right or wrong.

So the issue isn't that there is no space for everybody. The issue is that too many people want to live near city centres. There is no choice but to ration who gets to live in those desired locations.

If squatting is legal, then city dwellers can freely occupy any government or corporate or privately owned lands. However, if squatting is illegal, then people are hardly free to live in rural areas. They have to buy/rent or get permission from the land owners, if squatting is illegal.

[libertarian_4_life]

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this sums up my feelings about America.

[SolarCross]

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but this sums up my feelings about America.

Yeah good vid. 'They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!'. very apt.

Of course what George Carlin says about america being a club for the rich is also true of much of europe the only difference is that in europe our owners are afraid of us and so are more timid and sneaky about fucking us over. They are afraid of us because it wasn't so very long ago that the likes of them went under the guillotine.. they still fear that it might happen again and to be fair, if they carry on the way they are at the moment, it probably will.

[Eran]

In what way is the second person using force against YOU? because you are first and he is not first?

The full expression of the Non Aggression Principle is "It is wrong to use force against another person or his ongoing peaceful projects"

Assuming I initiated an ongoing project (such as working a field, for example), the second person would be using force against my project.

It is easy to see that without the second part, the NAP is virtually meaningless. You could walk around snatching food from my hand without ever touching me, and cause me to die of starvation, and such behaviour wouldn't be considered aggressive.

You first draw water from a lake and therefore no one else may draw water from the same lake without your permission? Is this what you believe?

No, it isn't. Homesteading, the acquisition of just title to property through first use, requires the kind of use that is naturally exclusive. Drawing water from the lake doesn't count. Clearing and planting a field does. What being the first to draw water from a lake (and continuing to do so regularly) gives you is an easement - a right to continue to use the lake in such manner.

If you first started using the lake, and I came later, building elaborate facilities around the lake (perhaps for tourists, or fish farming, water purification, etc.), my title over the facilities I build is restricted by the duty to allow you continued access to the water.


The point of property rights is to allow people to engage in long-term projects without others being allowed to use physical force against them. The point is not to exclude others arbitrarily, but only to exclude others when such exclusion is logically, normally, practically required given the nature of the project.


Clearly you misunderstood my idea on the nature, logic and justification of property rights. There is no point responding to the rest of your post, all of which is based on that misunderstanding.

Once you have read my clarification above, I will be happy to respond to any further comments.

[libertarian_4_life]

The full expression of the Non Aggression Principle is "It is wrong to use force against another person or his ongoing peaceful projects"

That definition is new to me. Sounds interesting. I think you should give it a special name.

Assuming I initiated an ongoing project (such as working a field, for example), the second person would be using force against my project.

It is easy to see that without the second part, the NAP is virtually meaningless. You could walk around snatching food from my hand without ever touching me, and cause me to die of starvation, and such behaviour wouldn't be considered aggressive.

Precisely how is the second person using force against you? please give some detailed examples. At precisely what moment does the initiation of force actually begin?

The reason why stealing food (or stealing any rightful property) is initiation of force is because someone laboured to produce that food.
stealing = making people into your slaves (because, when you steal, other people are involuntarily labouring for free)
If no one laboured to produce that food, then it's not stealing. Food found in the wild can be freely taken, but not food found in another person's hand.
Taking land (without permission) is not innately stealing because, in general, land is not produced by people.
If someone builds an island in a lake, by moving dirt, then arguably, it could be owned exclusively since the island was created by a person.
Removing an apple tree from private land (without permission) would be stealing if someone planted that tree OR (according to Locke) if there were not enough remaining apple trees for other people to use).
If nobody planted the apple tree, then nobody can rightfully claim exclusive ownership of it.
This is my view on stealing.

You first draw water from a lake and therefore no one else may draw water from the same lake without your permission? Is this what you believe?
No, it isn't. Homesteading, the acquisition of just title to property through first use, requires the kind of use that is naturally exclusive. Drawing water from the lake doesn't count. Clearing and planting a field does. What being the first to draw water from a lake (and continuing to do so regularly) gives you is an easement - a right to continue to use the lake in such manner.

Do you believe that simply trespassing (entering without owner permission) onto privately owned lands and/or buildings is initiation of force?
Just trying to better understand your concept of "force".

The point of property rights is to allow people to engage in long-term projects without others being allowed to use physical force against them. The point is not to exclude others arbitrarily, but only to exclude others when such exclusion is logically, normally, practically required given the nature of the project.

I understand what you write. But your belief is still contrary to Locke property rights. Locke says that the land can be appropriated for private use only if plenty of resources remain for other people to use. To do otherwise is akin to theft ("prejudice" according to Locke) even if a project has great value.

The main issue I have with your "peaceful project" ideology is the "I started my project first" principle.

1. Why is an existing project more worthy than any other proposed project? Perhaps someone else can use those exclusive resources more effectively and more productively.

2. It's not clear to me how to legally define what is a legitimate project. Will there be government issued project permits + occasional government inspections to ensure the project is still ongoing? Would I have the right to occupy (squat on) any unused (but legally owned) lands or buildings in order to start a project?

3. It worries me that any project might be permitted. It's not difficult to throw some seeds on a field and call it is a basic farming project.

[Eran]

Precisely how is the second person using force against you? please give some detailed examples. At precisely what moment does the initiation of force actually begin?

I cleared a field and sowed wheat.
You come with your cows and trample my wheat. That is an initiation of force.

Interpretation of NAP will always rely on common sense and reasonableness. Thus if you accidentally and momentarily stepped on my ploughed (but not yet sowed) field, the "initiation of force" probably fails to reach the level prohibited by NAP.

Similarly, if I built a house on an unused and unowned field, and you break in, you clearly violated NAP as the nature of my project (building secure and exclusive personal accommodation) requires exclusive use. The same would hold if, after I built my house, you build a noisy workshop next door, and emit ear-piercing noise day and night. If you build a house nextdoor and I can hear your children play in your yard (with noise level and times being reasonable by local standards), NAP is not violated.

The reason why stealing food (or stealing any rightful property) is initiation of force is because someone laboured to produce that food.

Labour doesn't give you property rights if you didn't already own the objects of your labour. For example, picking fruit from somebody else's tree might require labour, but doesn't give you property rights in the fruit.

Sowing a field that doesn't belong to you similarly requires much work, but doesn't give you ownership in the crops. You would have to explain how one first acquires property in external objects. Merely using labour doesn't work.

Taking land (without permission) is not innately stealing because, in general, land is not produced by people.

Neither is fruit. Please explain the difference between (1) picking a fruit growing in the wild, and (2) working a field.

In the former case, you claim that the labour associated with picking the fruit confers ownership, despite the fact that the labourer didn't produce the fruit. In the latter case your claim is that ownership isn't conferred, as the field wasn't produced.

Do you believe that simply trespassing (entering without owner permission) onto privately owned lands and/or buildings is initiation of force?
Just trying to better understand your concept of "force".

In general, it does, by definition. If the use I make of land doesn't naturally and reasonably require exclusive access, I do not own the land. If I do privately own land, it is (by proper understanding of NAP) because exclusive access is reasonably required for my project. Hence trespassing is injurious to that project.

But your belief is still contrary to Locke property rights.

Indeed. I do not agree, as a matter of principle, with the Lockean proviso. One doubts whether the proviso allows any homesteading to begin with. Under certain, extreme and highly unusual circumstances, the NAP may be violated. This is what I call "emergency situations". Thus if I homesteaded the only source of fresh water on an island in which I, together with a group of other people, are stranded, one could argue that emergency exceptions allow violation of NAP, and consequently my property rights. An alternative perspective would be to invoke the Lockean proviso.

1. Why is an existing project more worthy than any other proposed project? Perhaps someone else can use those exclusive resources more effectively and more productively.

Quite possibly. In which case they will be in a position to offer me a price that I will find attractive for my property. But the value of all things (including projects) is subjective. Perhaps I am attached to my family home, and its value to me goes beyond any purely-economic valuation of the property. That is why we cannot compel people to sell their property - only try and tempt them.

2. It's not clear to me how to legally define what is a legitimate project. Will there be government issued project permits + occasional government inspections to ensure the project is still ongoing? Would I have the right to occupy (squat on) any unused (but legally owned) lands or buildings in order to start a project?

I think of the project view as motivating, explaining and helping define the boundaries of property rights, rather than as a substitute for property rights as a practical tool for organising society.

Property rights, rather than project inspection, are the practical way of socialising (making available to the entire society) information regarding practical compliance with the NAP. The use I make of natural resources can (and typically does) change over time, without the need to change projects.

The permanent termination of use of land (or other resources) is abandonment. When property is abandoned, it reverts to an unowned state, and is then available again to first users. Thus "squatting" could be legitimate when the land or buildings in question are abandoned.

Since I am an anarchist, I see no productive or legitimate role for government. Arbitrators acceptable to the local community would judge both boundaries of initial property claims and whether any particular property was abandoned.

3. It worries me that any project might be permitted. It's not difficult to throw some seeds on a field and call it is a basic farming project.

Reasonableness, viewed through the eyes of objective and knowledgeable people (e.g. arbitrators assisted by juries familiar with local standards or relevant technology), ought to be used.

[lucky]

In the case of government, every government relies for its perceived legitimacy on an extra-governmental constitution. In the US, the constitution is written. It is accepted as the base of legitimacy by the vast majority of the population. The Constitution's legitimacy is not a product of government action - it is the base of government legitimacy.

The US Constitution's legitimacy is a product of government action... It was written and voted on at the Constitutional Convention by people who were very much a federal government. Their legal power was based on Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by state governments (also a government action).

In a market anarchy, society is still based on a constitution.

That means that you want a legislative branch but not an executive branch. A legislative branch without an executive branch is pointless. You can declare yourself to be such a legislative body right now, but there's nothing you'll achieve that way.

[Eran]

The legitimacy of the underlying constitution can never be a result of government action. If a written document is the result of government action, one can always ask where that particular government action acquired its legitimacy. This continued drilling has to end at some point.

If the US Constitution acquired its legitimacy from its ratification by state conventions, one can ask where did those Conventions acquired the legitimacy to authorise the Constitution in the first place? If you want to go back to the Article of Confederation, why were those perceived as legitimate? If it is the agreement of the thirteen colonial (later state) governments, how did those acquire their legitimacy?

Conversely, consider Great Britain. Parliament is supreme. But why? That didn't always use to be the case. The monarch used to be the ultimate source of legitimacy. Yet today, it isn't difficult to see a Parliamentary action abolishing the monarchy and accepted as legitimate. Why is that?

Ultimately, political legitimacy has to be traced back to the people.

That means that you want a legislative branch but not an executive branch. A legislative branch without an executive branch is pointless. You can declare yourself to be such a legislative body right now, but there's nothing you'll achieve that way.

No. I don't mean a legislative branch. I mean "constitution" (lower case) as in the structure of political sentiments and ideas of legitimacy prevailing within society. The very source that gives the British Parliament or the American Constitution (or, if you prefer, American state governments or state-level constitutions, or whichever popular assemblies first authorised state-level constitutions...) their perceived legitimacy can equally confer such legitimacy on other institutions (e.g. monarchy in previous centuries) or non-institutional political processes.

[libertarian_4_life]

Labour doesn't give you property rights if you didn't already own the objects of your labour. For example, picking fruit from somebody else's tree might require labour, but doesn't give you property rights in the fruit.

Sowing a field that doesn't belong to you similarly requires much work, but doesn't give you ownership in the crops. You would have to explain how one first acquires property in external objects. Merely using labour doesn't work.

In your world, a person who arrives on an empty island, can not acquire property rights to anything tangible he produces on the island unless he already owned the island (or part of the island).

I believe picking fruit from someone else's tree ought to give the picker some limited property rights on the picked fruit
..... not exclusive property rights, only limited property rights.
The tree owner is also entitled to some profit, because he owns the tree.

Landowners are not slave owners and not "masters of their domain". Landowners are not entitled to all profits from all labourers on their land.
Landowners ought to be able to keep profits from their employee's labour because, normally, all employees consent to sell their labour in exchange for payment.

Landowners can refuse entry to unauthorized fruit pickers or demand that pickers hand over all fruit to the land owner.
However, if the fruit is already picked, then it's too late. The pickers have already laboured to pick the fruit.
At this point, to not pay the labourers (in exchange for the fruit) is akin to stealing from the labourers.

Let me ask you this .....

Do I (exclusively) own the fruits of my labour or do I not?
If I do, then noone has a right, in any situation and for any reason, to take (steal) that labour from me, involuntarily.
If I don't, then, in some situations and for some reasons, some people do have a right to take the fruits of my labour, without my permission. In other words, my labour is (at least partially) owned by a "master" or "landowner" or "the state" or "privileged class" or "society" or "ancestors" or .....

[SolarCross]

Conversely, consider Great Britain. Parliament is supreme. But why? That didn't always use to be the case. The monarch used to be the ultimate source of legitimacy. Yet today, it isn't difficult to see a Parliamentary action abolishing the monarchy and accepted as legitimate. Why is that?
.

I don't think parliament could abolish the institution of the monarchy. The monarchy isn't under any contract to serve parliament it is the other way around. Parliament is under a contract to serve the monarchy. Part of that contract is the provision that the monarchy can revoke any act of parliament and that monarchy can dissolve parliament. Moreover the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarchy not parliament. Additionally the monarchy is the only and supreme landlord of all the UK territory and big chunk of the commonwealth too. If parliament were to attempt to abolish the monarchy they would have to do so with the consent of the monarchy, which is unlikely. If they attempted to abolish the monarchy without the consent of the monarchy they would be in breach of contract and would face being made instantly unemployed and probably arrested for treason by her majesties hired goons. Any attempt by parliament to abolish the monarchy would just result in a return to an absolute monarchy at least until the monarchy made a new parliament. Sadly the people would probably side with the monarchy too; the monarchy is a good deal more popular than parliament.

[libertarian_4_life]

Indeed. I do not agree, as a matter of principle, with the Lockean proviso. One doubts whether the proviso allows any homesteading to begin with. Under certain, extreme and highly unusual circumstances, the NAP may be violated. This is what I call "emergency situations". Thus if I homesteaded the only source of fresh water on an island in which I, together with a group of other people, are stranded, one could argue that emergency exceptions allow violation of NAP, and consequently my property rights. An alternative perspective would be to invoke the Lockean proviso.

"emergency situations" you say ......
watch out for that slippery slope. it's very steep. Pragmatism ahead.

A system is tested, by making sure it works at it limits. If it fails to work at its limits, then the system is a failure.
An ideology can become useless or meaningless by allowing for emergency exceptions.
I suggest trying to include those "emergency situations" into your ideology. If you can not do that, then, seriously, your ideology is wrong and should be abandoned.