[AFAIK]

How far do my land rights reach?

If a farmer tills the soil he is actively engaged with the top foot of land.
What if minerals or other resources are discovered under the field? Does the farmer own them by default or does he own the access rights via the surface of his field? What if someone attempted to tunnel under his land from a neighboring property in order to build a road or railway?

Currently land rights in Malaysia extend to the centre of the Earth, in Japan they reach 50 meters from the property.

[Nunt]

How far do my land rights reach?

If a farmer tills the soil he is actively engaged with the top foot of land.
What if minerals or other resources are discovered under the field? Does the farmer own them by default or does he own the access rights via the surface of his field? What if someone attempted to tunnel under his land from a neighboring property in order to build a road or railway?

Currently land rights in Malaysia extend to the centre of the Earth, in Japan they reach 50 meters from the property.

Property rights are limited to the that you take in use. So a farmer would own the depth of land that is necessary for farming. If someone digs a mine shaft underneath the farmland without disturbing the farmers activities, then this would be ok.

[Kapanda]

inb4 absolute devotion to property rights.

[SueDeNîmes]

Property rights are limited to the that you take in use. So a farmer would own the depth of land that is necessary for farming. If someone digs a mine shaft underneath the farmland without disturbing the farmers activities, then this would be ok.

Which is why Libertarianism is a formula for plutocracy in anything but a world of lone homesteaders.

No such world ever existed.

[Eran]

Plutocracy means government by property owners.

Libertarian anarchy (which Nunt and I both advocate) has no government. Hence, it isn't a plutocracy.


My broad formulation of the Non Aggression Principle is expressed in terms of prohibition over the initiation of force against (understood to mean physical invasion of) another person's peaceful projects.

With that formulation, property rights arise as a consequence rather than precondition for the NAP.

Applying this formulation to rights in land recovers Nunt's answer. The farmer owns the land by virtue of the project (farming) he initiated using that land. The land is his property only to the extent that a physical invasion of that land constitutes an initiation of force against his project.

Clearly, horizontal mine shafts deep enough under ground do not in any reasonable manner constitute initiation of force against the farming project. Hence, they do not violate the NAP, and do not, by consequence, violate the property rights of the farmer.

[SueDeNîmes]

Plutocracy means government by property owners.

Libertarian anarchy (which Nunt and I both advocate) has no government. Hence, it isn't a plutocracy.


My broad formulation of the Non Aggression Principle is expressed in terms of prohibition over the initiation of force against (understood to mean physical invasion of) another person's peaceful projects.

With that formulation, property rights arise as a consequence rather than precondition for the NAP.

Applying this formulation to rights in land recovers Nunt's answer. The farmer owns the land by virtue of the project (farming) he initiated using that land. The land is his property only to the extent that a physical invasion of that land constitutes an initiation of force against his project.

Clearly, horizontal mine shafts deep enough under ground do not in any reasonable manner constitute initiation of force against the farming project. Hence, they do not violate the NAP, and do not, by consequence, violate the property rights of the farmer.

Plutocracy means rule by the rich. If you're taking rule to mean de facto government, I'd agree and my point stands.

[mikema63]

I don't understand why only being able to own what you actually use means plutocracy. If anything it would make it impossible for most of the richest people in the world to be rich at all.

That particular definition of property taken in a certain sense can even be used to describe the personal property in anarcho-socialism and communism. Eran has hardly added anything to that short sentence that says evil evil rich people rule the world.

[SueDeNîmes]

I don't understand why only being able to own what you actually use means plutocracy.

Because humans have never been lone homesteaders. We first evolved from other social species due to the survival advantages of resource pooling. We're now all dependent on capital-intensive mass-production. We can't all own factories, retail chains etc. Do the math. What do you think all the dispute over 'means of production' since the industrial revolution has been about ?

[Soix]

How far do my land rights reach?

I don't know where exactly but I know that your right to the land with which you've mixed your labor with should not, in my opinion, extend to the center of the earth nor to the edges of the atmosphere. Why, by default should you have right to claim anything beyond that with which you haven't mixed your labor?

[Husky]

If I stick my fishing rod in the ocean and catch a fish, I can lay claim to the entire seven seas, right guys? That's how it works??

-_-

[Soix]

I don't know. If I empty my tomato juice into the sea such that every particle of the juice disperses into the whole sea, do I get to own the sea or have I foolishly wasted my tomato juice? (Nozick)

[Rainbow Crow]

The traditional position was that you own a pillar going into outer space and the center of the earth, but this has been rolled back over time. You don't own the airspace above your house unless it effects your home and you don't own the land beneath your house in the UK, though I believe you still do in the US.

[SueDeNîmes]

How far do my land rights reach?

I don't know where exactly but I know that your right to the land with which you've mixed your labor with should not, in my opinion, extend to the center of the earth nor to the edges of the atmosphere. Why, by default should you have right to claim anything beyond that with which you haven't mixed your labor?

and what does it matter when you're giving everything but the means of miserable subsistence to people who've never mixed their labour with anything but golf clubs?

[Eran]

Plutocracy means rule by the rich. If you're taking rule to mean de facto government, I'd agree and my point stands.

That depends on what one would characterise as "de facto government". To me, "government" has a necessary aspect of monopolization. If you have competition, you don't have government.

Consequently, the system I am advocating isn't "de facto government".

I don't understand why only being able to own what you actually use means plutocracy.

IT doesn't. But depending on how you define "actually use", it may well mean economic stagnation and decay.

We're now all dependent on capital-intensive mass-production.

We are all dependent on many things (farmers to grow our food, for example). But as long as those essentials aren't monopolised, and as long as we have the means with which to produce things of value with which to trade for those things we want, that dependency is benign.

In practice, there are many (more and more) non-capital-intensive means of subsistence, from services to software development.

We can't all own factories, retail chains etc.

Actually, through the magic of publicly-traded corporations, we can.

What do you think all the dispute over 'means of production' since the industrial revolution has been about ?

A red herring.

and what does it matter when you're giving everything but the means of miserable subsistence to people who've never mixed their labour with anything but golf clubs?

That's not the world we currently live in. Starting with little physical property and making a decent living isn't the exception - it is the norm in the west, and becoming progressively more so elsewhere in the world.

[SueDeNîmes]

Plutocracy means rule by the rich. If you're taking rule to mean de facto government, I'd agree and my point stands.

That depends on what one would characterise as "de facto government". To me, "government" has a necessary aspect of monopolization. If you have competition, you don't have government.

Consequently, the system I am advocating isn't "de facto government".

And so doesn't preclude rule by the rich.

We're now all dependent on capital-intensive mass-production.

We are all dependent on many things (farmers to grow our food, for example).

See above.

But as long as those essentials aren't monopolised, and as long as we have the means with which to produce things of value with which to trade for those things we want, that dependency is benign.

I disagree. It means dependency on wage labour which isn't benign unless subject to democratic controls.

In practice, there are many (more and more) non-capital-intensive means of subsistence, from services to software development.

Not really. They'd be impossible without the infrastructure and people forgo them at the first sign of trouble. Hence the parallel growth of underemployment, insecurity and debt.

Actually, through the magic of publicly-traded corporations, we can.

Owning a few shares isn't remotely like owning factories, retail chains etc and doesn't even put working conditions on the table.

A red herring.

Then your political philosophy is at odds with most peoples' perception of their interests and they won't peacefully cooperate with it.

That's not the world we currently live in. Starting with little physical property and making a decent living isn't the exception - it is the norm in the west, and becoming progressively more so elsewhere in the world.

And neither do we live in a world with the kind of property rights Libertarians want.

[Eran]

And so doesn't preclude rule by the rich.

A system in which there are no rulers does preclude rule by the rich (as well as by the militarily strong or politically popular).

It means dependency on wage labour which isn't benign unless subject to democratic controls.

Why do you think wage labour isn't benign? Especially in a world like ours, in which access to capital is widely and easily available, and in which most people make their living without resorting to capital-intensive mass-production?

Not really. They'd be impossible without the infrastructure and people forgo them at the first sign of trouble. Hence the parallel growth of underemployment, insecurity and debt.

The west is less and less dependent on capital-intensive manufacturing. We have information/knowledge economies. Media. Software. Hi-tech R&D (as opposed to manufacturing). We have health-care, education, retail, personal services, professional services, finance, legal and tax consulting, real-estate, design, and on and on.

Owning a few shares isn't remotely like owning factories, retail chains etc and doesn't even put working conditions on the table.

You don't need to own any shares to have working conditions "on the table". You merely need to freedom to choose your employment amongst competing opportunity, including both multiple potential employers and self-employment.

Then your political philosophy is at odds with most peoples' perception of their interests and they won't peacefully cooperate with it.

I know. We need to change people's perceptions first.

[SueDeNîmes]

And so doesn't preclude rule by the rich.

A system in which there are no rulers does preclude rule by the rich (as well as by the militarily strong or politically popular).

but trying to define it away doesn't.

Why do you think wage labour isn't benign?

Mainly because it gives a few the power to threaten peoples' means of supporting themselves and their families. People fear that far more than anything Libertarians call coercion. It's about the profoundest power you can have over people.

Especially in a world like ours, in which access to capital is widely and easily available, and in which most people make their living without resorting to capital-intensive mass-production?

I'd dispute that, but your question reveals that you understand the power disparities they engender.

The west is less and less dependent on capital-intensive manufacturing. We have information/knowledge economies. Media. Software. Hi-tech R&D (as opposed to manufacturing). We have health-care, education, retail, personal services, professional services, finance, legal and tax consulting, real-estate, design, and on and on.

I refer you back to the comment you're ostensibly replying to.

You don't need to own any shares to have working conditions "on the table". You merely need to freedom to choose your employment amongst competing opportunity, including both multiple potential employers and self-employment.

Not good enough. People had that before there were labour laws etc but conditions worsened until they were introduced. Even given the protections, people can't just switch jobs like brands of toothpaste. The cost to the employee in most cases far outweighs the cost to the employer. And keep switching jobs, your employment history will soon preclude you from all but the most marginal employment.

Then your political philosophy is at odds with most peoples' perception of their interests and they won't peacefully cooperate with it.

I know. We need to change people's perceptions first.

You'd need to change the reality before that. But then it wouldn't matter.

[Eran]

Mainly because it gives a few the power to threaten peoples' means of supporting themselves and their families.

Why "few"? There are millions of employers, plus many more millions of people who could be self-employed if they wanted to, but prefer working as employees.

The same logic would give a few (farmers) the power to threaten people's food supply. Yet we are not afraid of the power of farmers. Why is that?

I'd dispute that, but your question reveals that you understand the power disparities they engender.

Not at all. I believe that even (perhaps especially when capital is scarce, the capitalist system works well. The key is competition between employers over employees. As long as wages are at their market clearing level, a capitalist's profit-maximising strategy is to pay market wages and treat employees well. The capitalist is as much at the hands of his workers (without whom he will lose money to competitors) as the workers are at the hand of capitalists.

However, this point is even more evidently true in our world, with capital being anything but scarce, with bank loans available to all viable small business. It would be even more evidently true in the society I am advocating, one in which artificial government impediments to entry and competition will not exist.

People had that before there were labour laws etc but conditions worsened until they were introduced.

Any evidence to this myth? Working conditions have been better than those available in the farms people abandoned. They were better than anything available to ordinary people in non-industrial societies. And they were improved by productivity gains, not labour laws.

Even given the protections, people can't just switch jobs like brands of toothpaste. The cost to the employee in most cases far outweighs the cost to the employer. And keep switching jobs, your employment history will soon preclude you from all but the most marginal employment.

Nor can employers just switch employees like brands of toothpaste. The cost to the employer in many cases is greater than the cost to the employee. Keep losing workers, and your productivity and market reputation will soon preclude you from all but the most unproductive workers.

[SueDeNîmes]

Mainly because it gives a few the power to threaten peoples' means of supporting themselves and their families.

Why "few"? There are millions of employers

And billions of employees.

plus many more millions of people who could be self-employed if they wanted to, but prefer working as employees.

Not so. They couldn't compete with the efficiency of mass-production which, by definition, restricts the ratio of employers to employees.

The same logic would give a few (farmers) the power to threaten people's food supply. Yet we are not afraid of the power of farmers. Why is that?

Because the same logic does not apply to farmers since they've no incentive to drive down wages and working conditions of consumers (except their own employees).

Otherwise they probably would threaten food supply.

Not at all. I believe that even (perhaps especially when capital is scarce, the capitalist system works well. The key is competition between employers over employees. As long as wages are at their market clearing level, a capitalist's profit-maximising strategy is to pay market wages and treat employees well. The capitalist is as much at the hands of his workers (without whom he will lose money to competitors) as the workers are at the hand of capitalists.

However, this point is even more evidently true in our world, with capital being anything but scarce, with bank loans available to all viable small business. It would be even more evidently true in the society I am advocating, one in which artificial government impediments to entry and competition will not exist.

It's hard to find a coherent argument in that mishmash. Saying "even as" and "perhaps especially" when capital is scarce is contradictory. "Even as" acknowledges the power disparities you ostensibly deny. Nothing supports the assertion re wages at market clearing level, which is patently false as wages at market clearing level often involve appalling conditions.

Any evidence to this myth? Working conditions have been better than those available in the farms people abandoned. They were better than anything available to ordinary people in non-industrial societies. And they were improved by productivity gains, not labour laws.

Any counter-evidence that doesn't come from a biased source? You only have to look at actual legislation of conditions existing more than a century after industrialisation had obviated rural production.

Nor can employers just switch employees like brands of toothpaste.

They pretty much could as you go down the labour market, were it not for rules preventing it.

The cost to the employer in many cases is greater than the cost to the employee.

In few cases.

Keep losing workers, and your productivity and market reputation will soon preclude you from all but the most unproductive workers.

See, this is what the mass of people you need to convince know to be untrue from their own experience. It's why Libertarianism could only ever be imposed through force or fraud.

[Poelmo]

To me, "government" has a necessary aspect of monopolization. If you have competition, you don't have government.

A parliamentary coalition government consists of competing interests and its membership is liquid. A group of the biggest, most powerful companies/billionaires would de-facto rule an anarcho-capitalist society, sure membership of this illustrous group (which may be prone to cartel formation, which, though unstable, may still be profitable) will be liquid and the members will have competing interests but you're not getting rid of them by buying the services of a non-member company anymore than you get rid of a parliamentary government by voting for an opposition party or having one party leave the coalition, to be replaced by one that was formerly part of the opposition.


Money = power (money literally means control over natural resources and labor).

Your reply to that statement will no doubt be that the rich can't outlaw abortion and that that makes them different from government. Well, let's walk through it shall we:

- in an-cap society there is no mandated wealth transfer, no minimum wage, etc...

- this means most of the people will be too poor to afford health care insurance

- the an-cap answer to this is charity

- the rich pay for charity

- the rich decide what kind of charity will be available to the poor

- the rich may decide not to build charitable hospitals for the poor (which means no affordable abortions)

- if the rich do decide to have charitable hospitals built they can decide to not let those hospitals perform abortions (which means no affordable abortions)

- the rich ultimately employ a great number of people, they may decide to have recruiters discriminate against people who've had abortions (no anti-discrimination legislation exists), or make them pay a fine before they can be hired (which means only wealthy people would have abortions because only they can afford the consequences of getting found out)

The richest companies and billionaires could even use violence, sure they couldn't shoot people but they could use hunger as a weapon (just block food transports on the roads owned by the richest companies and billionaires), like African warlords do to beat populations into submission.