[Melodramatic]

This logical statement is true but inconsequential and indeterminate in whether or not corporations should be allowed to exist.

Never claimed otherwise.

Giving too much power to corporations, hierarchical companies who serve the interests of a few individuals, is unwise therefore I would recommend moving, voluntarily, to cooperatives. but this will happen without your consent anyway...

I'm confused, what are we arguing about?

Every person and company who owns a title to land is currently using or intends to use it.

Incorrect. The state reserves land to some individuals, or gives titles to people who are unrelated to that land. read this.

Doing so would push someone else's definition of right and wrong onto another (which is a primary argument against a state). Then you would have to confiscate that land from the current "illegitimate" owner, requiring the initiation of the use of force (another primary argument against the existence of a state).

So you prefer to keep the random definitions of the state as holy? if the state decided I own your house would you claim that justified? and you claim I am statist?

Land ownership today is based on the state. This is a fact, pure and simple. why do you want to preserve it so bad?

You can't not push a definition. I would claim you push your definition (which seems to be whatever the state wants) on me. all you can do is find one that makes sense and use it.

Also it is not aggression to invalidate a ownership title. It is returning a stolen item, like you would do if I stole your car. Like a real anarchist would do if the state gave his car to someone else...

[copaceticmind]

Let us say that the state is to dissolve tomorrow (as inconceivable and unlikely a situation it is). How do you propose to deal with the following situations? Please note that the "owners" in each of these situations are those the state would deem to be the rightful owner. Your task is to decide if this person or persons are still to be considered the rightful owners tomorrow. If not, what is the principle upon which their "ownership" is deemed invalid.

A man who owns a piece of property...

...where he currently resides.
...where he plans to reside in the future.
...where he and several others (who don't share in ownership) reside.
...where he does not reside, but several others do.
...through a business that employs many (who don't share in ownership).
...through a business which is vacant and unused, but is saved for future expansion of the business.

[Melodramatic]

...where he currently resides.

Indeed.

...where he plans to reside in the future.

If its truly in the near future rather than some future reservation. you can't have people going around building fences around land claiming that they will you it some day, otherwise people will do just that to all land, practically recreating the state. a court can handle this, as a worse case scenario, or just common sense.

...where he and several others (who don't share in ownership) reside.

Assuming he is renting it out, and has built it or bought it, I suppose so. I'd note that this won't be very profitable, as free banking would reduce the rent to the price and labor of maintaining the building.

...where he does not reside, but several others do.

As above.

...through a business that employs many (who don't share in ownership).

Similar to above (not really rent, but economically similar).

...through a business which is vacant and unused, but is saved for future expansion of the business.

As the second.

[copaceticmind]

So in what case would current ownership be considered invalid?

[Melodramatic]

So in what case would current ownership be considered invalid?

Well I have successfully confused myself

Sorry. Looking back, I think that the following cases :

...where he and several others (who don't share in ownership) reside.

...where he does not reside, but several others do.

...through a business that employs many (who don't share in ownership).

Are not considered valid (although the last case might be more complicated). This is because, while all property is a monopoly, this monopoly should not be exploited to prevent others from using unused property (rent being an extension of such). That would be like telling the state to reserve land for you. My instinct tells me to apply this only to land, while other cases would be made largely irrelevant with free banking.

[copaceticmind]

What makes land so special? Why would the Georgist or mutualist theories of land rights not also apply to other limited resources?

[Melodramatic]

What makes land so special? Why would the Georgist or mutualist theories of land rights not also apply to other limited resources?

While land is somewhat different, I'm actually not really sure. Most explanation I've read limit this to land, but the principle behind it seems correct, So I'm not sure why limit it. Proudhon would not like that, I believe.

[copaceticmind]

The mutualist theory of land rights seems, to me at least, to come from its scarcity. Because there is only a certain amount of land on the Earth then it would be unfair for someone to claim ownership when he doesn't make personal use of it, but if you were to turn this idea into a principle it falls apart. There is only a certain amount of any raw resource, but would you disagree if the companies extracting these materials from the Earth held on to them for "speculative" purposes. What about precious metals and gems?

In what other instance does someone's claim over their property become invalid because of non-use?

[Melodramatic]

but if you were to turn this idea into a principle it falls apart.

I am not sure it does... it seems more like I don't understand it thoroughly enough...

There is only a certain amount of any raw resource, but would you disagree if the companies extracting these materials from the Earth held on to them for "speculative" purposes.

hmmm interesting point. it seems hard to draw a clear line between possession and government reservation in cases other than land... I need to think about this..

In what other instance does someone's claim over their property become invalid because of non-use?

I think rent is the main problem, there are also cases in which a person uses a land title to prevent another from accessing land not to take rent but to create artificial scarcity...

Monopoly generally relates to preventing the workers access to resources, thus creating both privilege and preserving economical inequality. You can also see it is patents, to an extent, artificially creating scarcity of an innovation...

[copaceticmind]

I think rent is the main problem

Rent is nothing more than the borrowed right to use property. If renting land is the main problem then, as a principle, renting any property is a problem.

I think the movie rental business is a good analogy. Some people own movies for the sole purpose of letting others borrow movies. This is just like a landlord who owns land for the sole purpose of renting to those who do not own. It's not a perfect analogy because movies are not as scarce as land, but this is only to demonstrate that the renting of property is not, in and of itself, a problem.

[Melodramatic]

Possibly, I need to think. Lets look at it this way, have you a better principle on which you propose to base property? simply leaving the current property rights is not only an insufficient answer but very troubling. I'll take my beloved ( ) Israel as an example.

Israel's state-based land distribution is appalling, most land was given (not even sold) to a "private" company which sells it to Jews only. This created a situation in which there is a overpopulation problem in Palestinian villages but they can't use the empty land around them... it is owned by said company. surly you would not consider such a distribution right?

[copaceticmind]

I'm pretty sure I agree with the Lockean theory of land rights. There's not really any "distribution" because there would be no government to do it. The first to infuse labor with unowned land can claim ownership. The state method of staking a claim simply by saying, "I own this now," is absolutely illogical. By this same means, anyone could claim ownership to the entire universe.

The only thing I may disagree with Lockean land rights on is abandonment. Property is abandoned all the time. If someone throws something into the garbage that object is officially unowned. Land should be the same way. If someone effectively discards it, it should be considered unowned. This wouldn't just be leaving without the intention of returning, or even leaving without the intent to return or sell. It would be leaving without the intent to protect their right of ownership (possibly even with the intent to return or sell).

If I own a Rolex watch I would never leave it on a park bench, intending to come back for it tomorrow, and expect to retain ownership. Obviously, someone would likely pick it up, claim ownership, and take it home. It would be different if I had accidentally left the watch there. Ownership of lost property should be retained to an extent, probably as long as the original owner maintains an effort to locate and repossess it. Ceasing this effort would constitute abandonment. Anyhow, it's rather difficult to "lose" land. I could only see this as possible if it were forcibly taken.

I see this situation today with some relatives. In the past they frequently moved between several locations hundreds of miles apart. In their elder years they finally decided to settle, leaving the old farm property close to where I live. As of today there is no intent to return and no intent to sell, but I believe they have retained ownership by attempting to protect their rights. There are fences and gates, and they have asked several neighbors as well as family in the area to keep an eye on the property and keep it protected.

[Melodramatic]

I have come to the conclusion that my mind is not set enough in regards of the land and property issues, I shall do my best to gain a deeper understanding, but in the meantime my arguments might be lacking.

The state method of staking a claim simply by saying, "I own this now," is absolutely illogical. By this same means, anyone could claim ownership to the entire universe.

Indeed. like a true conqueror a the borders to a states claim of ownership is all it can coerce. this it usually distributes amongst the citizens for various interests, in a way only equitable to central planning. If indeed you go Lockean, however unfortunate, I would recommend you trying some kind of radical Lockeanism which does not accept state given titles as holy... that would be preserving millenniums of injustice, as in my given example of Israel.

The only thing I may disagree with Lockean land rights on is abandonment.

Ah, a central flaw indeed. I'll expand on what you have already written using this example. A man plants a field, uses it and enjoys the product of his labor. Nice and dandy. The man loses interest, as might happen when he grows old and the field welts. another man wants to build a house where the field was. The farmer can now take an infinite rent form the man requesting the house. The farmer no longer has any real connection to this land, but the title. so by expanding an amount of labor, which I have yet to understand what is the required size of (building a fence around something does not seem like a valid claim to property, and disagreement on this is an argument on its own right), you can benefit infinitely from a the labor of anyone who wants to use it even if the usage of the item is not even related to your original expenditure of labor. How can this be determined as anything but a state based monopoly? does it really seem natural that a man building a house has to check whether somebody ever used the land before him?

All property is monopoly. It is saying that only you have the right to use a certain item or enter a certain piece of land. not to say that it is wrong, some is required for people to function, some is naturally their right. but when that monopoly us abused to make effortless profit, I will object, and say "state".

[copaceticmind]

The concept of a monopoly is largely subjective. It depends on the market you are looking at. If I own a car I have a monopoly on that car only but not on the entire car market. Likewise, if BMW were the sole producers of automobiles they would have a monopoly on automobiles but not on the transportation market. How hard would it be for one company to have complete control over every means of transportation available? Even if it were to happen that company would still have to compete on other things consumers could spend their money on.

The ownership of a piece of land can only be considered a monopoly if you look only at the market for that specific piece of land, but the land market in general could never meet the definition of a monopoly. There is no single seller of land, and the sellers have little to no control over the sell price. The only way I could see anything remotely resembling a monopoly is if one person, or company, owned an entire town. Even in this instance buyers have the option of expanding to a wider market going to different towns.

[SecretSquirrel]

Yes but how can one come to privately own a commons? This is a very difficult question to answer and I am now less and less certain that it can be justified.

[ingliz]

Capitalism is inherently authoritarian and hierarchic.

Most people work and/or live in rented accommodation. If property owners decided they needed defence associations and a code of laws to protect their property wouldn't they be exercising "a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence over a given area"*...

And if the costs of these associations were deducted from the wealth created by those who use, but do not own, the property (Workers paying for the agencies that enforce their employers authority over them) is this not taxation? **

"Anarcho" capitalists cannot get rid of the state, they can only privatise it.


* Weber's definition of the State

* MacSaorsa

[copaceticmind]

The difference is that the rule of law created by the owner is dissolved when ownership is dissolved. Under the current system the state's laws apply no matter the owner of the property. In the case of a "privatized state" any contracts entered into are completely voluntary. Anyone who doesn't want to live on someone else's land under someone else's rules can buy their own property. It's all about the freedom of association.

[Melodramatic]

If I own a car I have a monopoly on that car only but not on the entire car market.

Correct. Property is monopoly over a thing, an object, not a market. Society gives you sole right to an object. but that is not the main point of my argument.

The only way I could see anything remotely resembling a monopoly is if one person, or company, owned an entire town. Even in this instance buyers have the option of expanding to a wider market going to different towns.

Interesting example...

Lets take a theoretical example one company comes into possession of all ground in the united states. it would take rent from the people living in the country, and impose laws on its property. How is this company different form a state? of course they can leave and live elsewhere, but you can say that today too. and who is to say that some other company won't buy the land above the USA and call itself Canada? eventually situation we see today can repeat itself, perhaps using wealth rather than guns...

But that's a wild theoretical example. people probably own just small pieces of land. but then comes the point which was raised in this thread already (as I know see ), that's just privatizing the state. Permanent property titles do not only require a state, they are the state.

Hmmm... seems I accidentally repeated ingliz's argument. Should really read them all before replying...

Yes but how can one come to privately own a commons? This is a very difficult question to answer and I am now less and less certain that it can be justified.

He can take it and use it. If nobody is already using it, or has intention to, nobody will object.

[copaceticmind]

He can take it and use it. If nobody is already using it, or has intention to, nobody will object.

What about a park where the entire community uses the property as a collective?

[Melodramatic]

I would say that as long as his usage of the park does not interfere with their usage, they won't have a problem...