Mutualism: A Philosophy for Thieves
The collapse of socialism-communism has not only given rise to the remarkable growth of environmentalism, as a replacement outlet for hostility to capitalism, but also to some growth, vastly less considerable of course, in the remnants of the old anarchist movement, which now sometimes calls itself “libertarian� or “left-libertarian.� A leading strand of this remnant goes under the name “Mutualism.� And its philosophy has recently been set forth in a book by one Kevin Carson, called Studies in Mutualist Political Economy (Fayettville, Arkansas: Self-published, 2004), which I reviewed in the current issue of The Journal of Libertarian Studies. The opening portion of my review appears in my blog posting of June 10 on this site.
The purpose of this posting is to expand on the following paragraph of that portion of my review:
Thus, for example, if I, a legitimate owner of a piece of property, legitimate even by Carson’s standards, decide to rent it out to a tenant who agrees to pay the rent, the property, according to Carson, becomes that of the tenant, and my attempt to collect the mutually-agreed-upon rent is regarded as a violent invasion of his [the tenant’s] “absolute right of property.� In effect, Carson considers as government intervention the government’s upholding the rights of a landlord against a thief. He believes he has the right to prohibit me and the tenant from entering into an enforceable contract respecting the payment of rent and that such action is somehow not a violation of our freedom of contract and not government intervention.
In support of my claims, I now quote Mr. Carson:
For mutualists, occupancy and use is the only legitimate standard for establishing ownership of land, regardless of how many times it has changed hands. An existing owner may transfer ownership by sale or gift; but the new owner may establish legitimate title to the land only by his own occupancy and use. A change in occupancy will amount to a change in ownership. Absentee landlord rent, and exclusion of homesteaders from vacant land by an absentee landlord, are both considered illegitimate by mutualists. The actual occupant is considered the owner of a tract of land, and any attempt to collect rent by a self-styled landlord is regarded as a violent invasion of the possessor's absolute right of property. (p. 200.)
Careless readers of this passage from Carson may assume that all that he is talking about is the case in which a later owner chooses not to occupy or use the property to which he has obtained title. Such a case is certainly possible, but it is not the case that needs to be considered first. The case that needs to be considered first is that of land which passes from the possession of someone whom Carson acknowledges as a legitimate owner, that is, precisely the kind of person of whom he says, “An existing owner may transfer ownership by sale or gift� to someone else, and then this someone else does, indeed, occupy and use the land.
The problem is that, according to Carson, this new party’s mere occupancy and use of the land extinguishes any possible property right in the land on the part of the previous possessor, whom Carson acknowledged as legitimate.
For suppose the first owner and the prospective second owner mutually agree on a rental of the land. According to Carson, once the second owner takes possession of the land and begins using it, he is now the legitimate owner. “A change in occupancy will amount to a change in ownership,� he has just said. If the first owner, who no longer occupies or uses the land, collects rent on it, he is a landowner who is absent from the land on which he collects rent. He is thus, necessarily, an “absentee landlord.� And Carson has also just said: “Absentee landlord rent, and exclusion of homesteaders [i.e., presumably the second occupant-user] from vacant land by an absentee landlord, are both considered illegitimate by mutualists. The actual occupant is considered the owner of a tract of land, and any attempt to collect rent by a self-styled landlord is regarded as a violent invasion of the possessor's absolute right of property.�
Here there is a mutually and voluntarily agreed upon rental contract, but after taking possession, the new occupant decides that he is the owner of the land and will not pay any “absentee landlord rent,� which Carson believes it is his absolute right to decide. Has he not obtained another’s legitimate property and is now refusing to pay for it? And, having taken it, and both refusing to pay for it and refusing to give it back, is he thus not stealing that property?
Would he have been able to obtain the use and occupancy of the land if it had been known or suspected that this is how he would behave, once having obtained it? Obviously, he would not have been able to, and the assurance of his not behaving in this way is a written and signed enforceable rental contract. In that contract it is agreed that in the event of failure to pay the rent, the use and possession of the property reverts to the first user/possessor, who is recognized as the property’s owner despite his absence from the property. The contract also provides that in the event of non-payment of the rent, the owner has the right to dispossess the tenant by force if necessary.
Carson denies the landowner’s rights in a case of this kind and regards the landowner’s act of dispossession as “a violent invasion of the possessor's absolute right of property.� He considers the support given the landlord by the courts and the police in enforcing the contract to be “government intervention.�
Because of these facts, I concluded in my review of his book, as I said near the beginning of this posting, that “Carson considers as government intervention the government’s upholding the rights of a landlord against a thief. He believes he has the right to prohibit me and the tenant from entering into an enforceable contract respecting the payment of rent and that such action is somehow not a violation of our freedom of contract and not government intervention.�
It should be realized that Carson’s hostility to private property rights is not limited to the case of land. He makes clear that it also includes houses and apartments. He advocates the seizure of vacant homes and apartments by homeless squatters. Thus, he declares:
If every vacant or abandoned housing unit in a city is occupied by the homeless, they will at least have shelter in the short term until they are forcibly removed. . . . In the meantime, the squatters' movement performs a major educative and propaganda service, develops political consciousness among urban residents, draws public attention and sympathy against the predatory character of landlordism, and—most importantly—keeps the state and landlords perpetually on the defensive. (pp 377-378.)
On the basis of this and all of the foregoing, I say that Carson’s “Mutualism� is a philosophy for thieves. As I wrote in my full-length review in the JLS:
The logic of Carson’s position extends to legitimizing auto theft: An individual rents a car from Hertz or Avis. He is the user/occupant. Hertz or Avis is the absentee owner demanding rent. It extends to the theft of clothing that is not being worn at the moment by its—absentee—owner. It extends to all property, for once in the possession of the thief, the thief as user/possessor becomes the legitimate owner, according to Carson’s conception of things.Carson simply does not understand that ownership is not the mere possession and use of property but rather the moral and legal right to determine the possession and use of property.
Ironically, his failure to grasp this last principle totally undercuts his condemnation of the massive seizures of land that have occurred throughout history and which are the ostensible reason for his condemnation and hatred of “landlordism.� To the extent that such seizures were the result of a population of outsiders that not only seized the land of the previous occupants but also proceeded to work it, Carson has no basis of opposition, because his principle is that use determines ownership, and they are now the users. His principle of use determining ownership leaves no basis for opposing any theft, so long as the thief uses what he has stolen.
What Carson is actually opposed to is not violent appropriation of land —indeed, as we have seen, that is precisely what he advocates whenever he thinks it is “just.� What he is actually opposed to is merely the case in which the thief does not use what he has stolen—the leading example being when the thief settles down to become a landlord collecting rent on land that others use.
But, of course, Carson is equally opposed to someone who is not a thief also not using his own property. Non-use is alleged justification for legitimate property being seized, and, as I’ve shown, not just land but also homes and apartments, and by implication, automobiles, clothing, and everything else that is not being used by its owner.
I cannot help but suspect that what Carson is actually opposed to is not at all force, fraud, or actual injustice in the history of mankind but the existence of large inequalities of wealth and income, whatever their basis. The idle wealth of the rich is what he has in mind for seizure and subsequent use by the poor, who would allegedly be its rightful owners by virtue of the mere fact of their use of what they had stolen.
Hopefully, in the future, I will be able to address further the problems connected with violent seizures of land in the past and explain why they are irrelevant to the present and do not justify programs of redistributionist “land reform.� For those who may be interested, I have already written on this subject in my book Capitalism, on pp. 317-322.
For now what it is essential to understand is that Carson’s “Mutualism� is a philosophy that urges theft.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Comments (115)
Reisman asserts:
"I cannot help but suspect that what Carson is actually opposed to is not at all force, fraud, or actual injustice in the history of mankind but the existence of large inequalities of wealth and income, whatever their basis."
I agree, ever since I first heard about "Mutualism" and read Carsons book, I have suspected that they are simply another political philosophy that masquerades as propenents of liberty and free markets but are motivated by hatred and envy of the succesful. I would like to note, however, that I sympathise with the Mutualists stance against any sort of Government protected special interests.
I would like to say something more in depth than simply agreeing with you, but I haven't the time. (If I had the time, I would especially like to address your argument about the property owner and the tenant, and Carson's amusingly ad hoc rebuttal in the Journal).
In closing I would like to congratulate you, Professor Reisman, for writing "Capitalism" which is the most brilliant economic treatise ever written. Also, please keep posting your brilliantly insightful articles, you are one of the main reasons I have mises.org bookmarked.
Published: June 18, 2006 6:35 PM
This would completely ruin poor people. They would never be able to rent cars, they would never be able to rent even a steam cleaner, they would never be able to use hotels, and they probably wouldn't even be able to check out books from the library.
A rich person could get arround these restrictions easially, he could simply buy the apartment or hotel he's renting as a condo and then sell it for the rent differential later on. He could simply buy the car he is renting, and then sell it back at a pre agreed price.
This would also put many small businesses out of business almost immediately. It is not uncommon for small businesses to take posession of goods or commodities before they pay for them, and then pay them off after the sale. Carson's attempt to assign ownership to posession would destroy that system for all but the most established businesses. It would also increase the cash flow requirements of all businesses and probably lead to drastic increases in prices.
Yep. If I hated poor people, this would be a very efficient way to royally screw them over. They always said that the problem with the USSR, wasn't Communisim - only that it was implemented incorrectly. Well, perhaps this is what they were talking about?
(The ironic thing is that we may see this economic condition very very soon anyhow because the US economy has more debt than it can pay off and the US fiat money system will "solve" this problem by printing up tons of money and make almost any sort of lease worthless)
Published: June 18, 2006 10:11 PM
"...in the remnants of the old anarchist movement, which now sometimes calls itself “libertarian� or “left-libertarian.�
It was the historic anarchists who were actually the first to use the term "libertarian" in a political context, not that we have exclusive right to it, given our opposition to patent privileges. See, we're not such envious, thieving, greedy bastards, after all, LOL!
"The logic of Carson’s position extends to legitimizing auto theft: An individual rents a car from Hertz or Avis. He is the user/occupant. Hertz or Avis is the absentee owner demanding rent. It extends to the theft of clothing that is not being worn at the moment by its—absentee—owner. It extends to all property, for once in the possession of the thief, the thief as user/possessor becomes the legitimate owner, according to Carson’s conception of things."
"Non-use is alleged justification for legitimate property being seized, and, as I’ve shown, not just land but also homes and apartments, and by implication, automobiles, clothing, and everything else that is not being used by its owner."
This is a misrepresentation that is being used to construct a reductio ad absurdum argument. Virtually all non-Lockean (or, more accurately, non-Misesian) free market economists, whether mutualists, geoists or left-Rothbardians, distinguish between "property" in pre-existing natural resources (like land) or "property" held by corporative entities connnected to the state (like the Catholic Church in traditional Europe, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the majority of the corporate classes of the modern state-capitalist regimes) and personal possessions and individual proprietorships. For that matter, so do anarcho-communists, syndicalists, the majority of conventional socialists and not a few Marxists.
I think reasonable and honest libertarians can disagree on this question, but pre-existing natural resources like land, rivers, oceans, wildlife and ecosystems are not merely "property" derived from "mixing one's labor and personality" with thin air. The existence of these precedes any effort by any individual. Does Neil Armstrong have title to the moon because he was there first? Maybe he should now be considered "absentee landlord" and entitled to collect rent from all subsequent astronauts and space travelers?
"It should be realized that Carson’s hostility to private property rights is not limited to the case of land. He makes clear that it also includes houses and apartments. He advocates the seizure of vacant homes and apartments by homeless squatters. Thus, he declares:
'If every vacant or abandoned housing unit in a city is occupied by the homeless, they will at least have shelter in the short term until they are forcibly removed. . . . In the meantime, the squatters' movement performs a major educative and propaganda service, develops political consciousness among urban residents, draws public attention and sympathy against the predatory character of landlordism, and—most importantly—keeps the state and landlords perpetually on the defensive. (pp 377-378.)'"
This is an issue I actually have a fair amount of experience with. In my city, houses and apartment buildings are all over the place that have, quite literally, been abandoned by their "owners". Typically, these buildings are dilapidated to the point where they are unsafe or extremely unattractive for people of any means whatsoever. Consequently, they are squatted by people from various marginalized populations, usually drug addicts, vagrants, drunks, homeless teenagers or runaways, the lowest level street prostitutes and other similar figures. Needless to say the municipal authorities are rather unhappy about the situation so, in addition to conventional police raids and outright repression, they will attempt to bring the "owners" up on charges related to building codes, zoning, property upkeep laws, the whole deal. However, these "owners" are typically, and quite literally, nowhere to be found meaning it is often unclear who exactly, if anyone, actually has legal title to the "property" in question? So the squatters' will typically be evicted if not arrested and the "property" will be seized by the local government and sold to developers, speculators or conventional landlords at blue light special prices, if not given away. I've heard of landlords being given such properties for as little as $100 (I'm not kidding here!)
These kinds of situations illustrate quite well what is wrong with "landlordism" from a traditional anarchist perspective.
Anyway, here is Carson's actual take on rental property (from another thread on this site):
"Tucker in places seemed to leave open the possibility that house-rent would continue: so long as the state did not prevent homesteading of vacant land, market competition would reduce house rent"
If someone is able, out of their own savings, to buy a piece of real estate they don't actually build a house on (but just like the view or something) or buy a house they rent to others, that's fine by me, but that's not how institutionalized landlordism actually works.
"Hopefully, in the future, I will be able to address further the problems connected with violent seizures of land..."
Please do.
" and explain why they are irrelevant to the present and do not justify programs of redistributionist 'land reform.'"
Why are they irrelevant? If the structural foundations of the status quo are indeed built upon prior interventions and expropriations, and if the status quo are indeed the net beneficiaries of those expropriations, why are the net victims of those expropriations not entitled to their "forty acres and a mule"?
"For now what it is essential to understand is that Carson’s “Mutualism� is a philosophy that urges theft."
Yeah, yeah, and pro-choice libertarians are accomplices to child genocide. Libertarians who oppose antidiscrimination laws are crypto-nazis. Libertarian opponents of vice and drug laws are libertines and immoralists. We've heard all that.
Published: June 18, 2006 10:46 PM
Mr. Preston, you as well as most mutualists fit the description of a "past-oriented" person, in that you are obsessed about correcting the injustices of the past at the expense of the future course of mankind. What this mutualist principle amounts to is a prohibition of rental agreements and a legitimization of theft. A future-oriented person will recognize how such a prohibition will destroy many critical exchange relationships and force property-owners to take otherwise unnecessary actions to protect their property.
Published: June 18, 2006 11:16 PM
I'm a landlord.
I have property that I would rather not sell, that I see as being more valuable to keep than to divest at this time.
I allow someone else to use the property today, for a fee. It is entirely voluntary and mutual.
If the property is destroyed, say by flood or earthquake, the renter loses nothing. They move on, just as they were. I lose everything. That is the risk I take as owner, that is the risk they avoid as renter.
What I find absurd is that a mutually agreeable arrangement, that of renter and landlord, can be nay-sayed at all. It is mutual! If I asked too much, or the prospective renter offered too little, both of us are free to say no. Hardly the situation with the IRS!
Lastly, the renter may offer to buy me out at any time they wish, at any price they wish to offer. I am also free to accept or turn down that offer, and it has nothing what so ever to do with their "status" as renter or my "status" as landlord.
My investment in property is no different than my investment in a truck. If it costs me more to keep it than to sell it, I will sell it. If I expect to have greater return by using it to haul trash, I will use it to haul trash.
Right now my property is best utilized to be a dwelling for 3 college students who themselves believe it is more efficient for them to rent a place to live until graduation than to try to buy a home.
Tell me again how I am "exploiting" anyone?
Curt-
Published: June 18, 2006 11:37 PM
Guys, you have to be a little careful with Curt_Howland. While I agree with his conclusions on this matter, it's obvious he's not advancing the debate any by merely assuming the validity of his claim to the land. I do have a question that I've always wanted answered, and it seems like Keith Preston, who is both articulate and a defender of mutualist property arragements, would be a good person to answer.
Keith: You say land is "pre-existing", rendering null anyone's superior claim to it by virtue of being first. But land is certainly not "just there", available for anyone to take, if only those parasites got out of the way. Land must be discovered. Land that no one knows about has no value. It in no sense "precedes the efforts of any individual". Until someone can do all of the labor in finding and getting to that land, no one can make any use of it. So why should the discoverer have an equal claim to those who did not render it useful through discovery?
And as for the distinction between the evil landlordism in renting out land, and the non-evil carlordism in renting out cars, if there's a distinction, Carson didn't make it in his book, and that's why Reisman was so adamant about making that point.
Published: June 19, 2006 8:39 AM
Person,
I know you addressed this to Preston, but I'd like to add a little to this.
"Until someone can do all of the labor in finding and getting to that land, no one can make any use of it. So why should the discoverer have an equal claim to those who did not render it useful through discovery?"
This is the root of the entire question. When you own land, what are the limits of your possession? Clearly, it is fairly easy to describe the two dimensional boundaries. A problem comes in with the third dimension, however.
Does your right to the land allow you to build a skyscraper on your land? How about if there is currently an airport nearby that requires that planes be able to fly over your property at 300 feet? What if that airport was in existence for 30 years before you bought the property (and leaving the question of noise nuisance aside)?
Going in the other direction, we know that the earth is a sphere (or close to one), so how we draw those lines? Or should we even do that? Given your preference (which I tend to share) that whoever first liberates a resource into usable form gets ownership, what's wrong with slant drilling? Or mining under another's surface property, so long as you don't damage their support (my state, PA, has quite a bit of case law dealing with this very issue).
And finally, going back to Preston's comment, what exactly permits a valid claim to land? Did Christopher Columbus possess valid title to the entire new world? What gave the European monarchs the right to sell property in what became the colonies? What gave the U.S. government the right to parcel out the West?
Granted, I concur with urbanitect, that getting too obsessed with the past is counter-productive in determining how to go forward. However, it is vitally important to appraise our current situation for what it is, in its entirety - the result of state engineering. Had the state(s) not intervened to the extent that they have, I don't think society would look anything like it does today, and that includes much of the centralization of goods and services that were achieved through state interference (it's always easier to tax fewer, centralized businesses than it is to tax a truly mobile, de-centralized, free market economy - that's why the socialist governments in Africa quickly acted to destroy the traditional property rights of nomadic hunter-gatherers, leading to today's poverty)
Published: June 19, 2006 9:15 AM
It seems clear to me that Carson's position is the logical outcome of true anarchism. You only own property to the extent that you can defend the ownership yourself. Any cooperative effort with others to defend said property, and the property of the others, is the genesis of a state.
If the homesteading of unused property is legitimate, then my back yard is open to any squatter to take possession since I use the backyard less than 100% of the time. Indeed, the same could be said of the three bedrooms that I do not sleep in, or, even, of the one I do. There are no boundaries or rules on ownership in anarchy. As soon as you can't defend your property, it is no longer yours.
Published: June 19, 2006 9:25 AM
"Mr. Preston, you as well as most mutualists fit the description of a "past-oriented" person, in that you are obsessed about correcting the injustices of the past at the expense of the future course of mankind."
Well, these "injustices" from the past are the foundation of the present state of social, economic and class relations. I doubt you would take such a defensive attitude towards the status quo built upon prior expropriations by Commie regimes, like Cuba or North Korea? Why let the state-capitalists/corporate-mercantilists off the hook?
"What this mutualist principle amounts to is a prohibition of rental agreements and a legitimization of theft."
The usufructary approach to property rights favored by mutualists is the same as that offered by those great Marxist ideologues, G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, and that great den of Commie thieves, the Catholic Church. You can argue against this perspective on technical economic grounds if you wish, but this discrepancy among libertarians over property theory is no different from conflicting ideas about the "right to life" that leads libertarians to have differing views on things like abortion, capital punishment, "just war" doctrine, euthanasia, animal rights, environmentalism and other things.
"A future-oriented person will recognize how such a prohibition will destroy many critical exchange relationships and force property-owners to take otherwise unnecessary actions to protect their property."
Yeah, we wouldn't want compensation for victims of prior expropriations getting in the way of "progress" or inconveniencing the beneficiaries of those expropriations, would we?
"Keith: You say land is "pre-existing", rendering null anyone's superior claim to it by virtue of being first. But land is certainly not "just there", available for anyone to take, if only those parasites got out of the way. Land must be discovered. Land that no one knows about has no value. It in no sense "precedes the efforts of any individual". Until someone can do all of the labor in finding and getting to that land, no one can make any use of it. So why should the discoverer have an equal claim to those who did not render it useful through discovery?"
I'll respond to that by referring to the "Gilligan's Island" analogy I've used in other debates on this site.
Gilligan and the castaways are shipwrecked on the island. Does the island become their private property by virtue of discovery? Or does it remain the property of whatever headhunters or Tarzan-like characters happen to be on the island? If it belongs to the castaways, how much of the island can they claim? The whole thing? Enough to farm for their own subsistence? Enough to build huts or tents for themselves? How does this break down on an individual basis? Are the Skipper, Gilligan, Ginger, Mary Ann, etc. each entitled to an equal share of the island? If the Skipper exerts more energy in pulling the Minnow ashore, fighting off savages, picking berries, is he entitled to a greater share than Mr. Howell who sits around complaining about the heat and mosquitos? What if another group of castaways is subsequently shipwrecked on the same island? Are Gilligan and his friends obligated to share the island with the newcomers? Or can they just push them back into the sea because Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard said they could? If so, is it realistic to expect the 2nd group of castaways to say, "Well, in the spirit of compliance of the idealized property rights vision of John Locke, as enunciated by his apostle Murray Rothbard, we therefore agree to subject ourselves to death by starvation, saltwater poisoning or drowning, or shark attacks, because of our sworn fidelity to the eternal spirit of Ayn Rand." I doubt it would go down that way. More likely, the 2nd group would arm themselves with bamboo spears and have at it with Gilligan and associates.
You can take this argument to absurd extremes in either direction. From one end, you can say Neil Armstrong has a legitimate title to the moon. From the other end, you can say someone else can stake a claim to your backyard if you don't have an actual garden, swimming pool or playpen for the kids there.
I'm actually somewhat agnostic on the question of how property rights should be defined down to the last letter of the law. I lean towards the mutualist perspective because it seems to me to be a happy middle ground between staking claims to the moon on one hand and total negation property rights on the other. The question is where do you draw the line. It's like the abortion question: If abortion is permissable, why not infanticide? If abortion is impermissable, why not contraception?
"And as for the distinction between the evil landlordism in renting out land, and the non-evil carlordism in renting out cars, if there's a distinction, Carson didn't make it in his book, and that's why Reisman was so adamant about making that point."
Well, I don't know what kind of distinction, if any, Kevin would make between landlordism and "carlordism". However, his approach to land rights theory is rooted in traditional non-Lockean views on this question like those offered by Proudhon, Henry George or Chesterton and Belloc. As I said before, most adherents of perspectives of this type distinguish between property rights in natural resources like land and property rights in personal possessions and consumer goods like tools, clothing or automobiles.
As I've also said before, the aspect of Kevin's arguments I find most compelling are the degree to which he has established that prior expropriations have determined the present state of class relations. Even if you prefer Lockean over mutualist or distributist property theory, I think his arguments along these lines would still hold up about as well.
Published: June 19, 2006 9:39 AM
Here's a link to an article by Kevin Carson on the whole "slavery reparations" issue that summarizes his approach to class and property relations quite well.
http://mutualist.org/id9.html
Published: June 19, 2006 9:41 AM
Yancey:
"It seems clear to me that Carson's position is the logical outcome of true anarchism. You only own property to the extent that you can defend the ownership yourself."
Why limit that to anarchism? Couldn't you say that's equally true under statism? If you steal my wallet then it wouldn't matter how valid my claim to the wallet is because you would still have it, regardless of my claims or the existance of a state.
I think what we're doing here is trying to establish what constitutes of valid claim to property. That's actually a method of defending claims to property. When this rational method fails, force might be an option to gain possession, but that doesn't necessarily make the outcome valid.
"Any cooperative effort with others to defend said property, and the property of the others, is the genesis of a state."
I would have said that it's the forcible seizure of (rather than the cooperative defense of) rationally determined property claims that is genesis of a state. Interesting.
Published: June 19, 2006 10:47 AM
xsteve,
What is the purpose of a valid theory of property rights beyond one's ability to defend the property in anarchy? If one follows the mutualist's philosophy, then there are no real property rights beyond that point. Using the example of the backyard of my property, how does one define "use" in anarchy? It seems to me that the mutualists simply accept that the owner of any property is the one who is more willing to fight for it, thereby demonstrating the greatest need; and any intervention of third parties to the conflict is a violation of the natural rights of one or both of the original contestants.
Published: June 19, 2006 11:07 AM
xsteve has a point, in that currently, individually-owned property (e.g., by homeowners or other non-farm or non-corporate entities) is not really owned at all, but simply rented, such rents being the property taxes demanded by the municipality. It is an implicit assumption that an individual really cannot own the land at all, whether by mutualist, communist, Lockean, Hoppean, or Rothbardian conception - as long as the state is involved, we are but simple tenants.
Published: June 19, 2006 11:12 AM
Keith_Preston: In response to my challenge about the requirement of labor for land to be usable, your response is, and please correct me if this is in any sense a misrepresentation (as long as you say precisely how):
1) First use is hard to define. (quasibill made a similar point but didn't claim it was a refutation)
2) In practice, people will fight over land.
If this is your reply, which appears to be the case, and if you're being serious (which I hope is not the case), then my response goes as follows and begins now:
2) is irrelevant to determining *whose* property claim, for which they're fighting, is more morally valid. 1) is not a reason to prefer mutualist property rules, since it also requires "use" to be definied, and in fact tags on the additional problem of what constitutes "abandonment."
Well, I don't know what kind of distinction, if any, Kevin would make between landlordism and "carlordism".
Er, yeah, that's Reisman's point. He *doesn't* make a principled distinction, and that's the problem. That's why Reisman's reductio refutes Carson's position. If landlordism is wrong, carlordism is wrong. So is clotheslordism. Anyone who rents a tuxedo (which if anyone cares is primarly a product of labor) is fully justified in running off with it. Any theft is justified as long as you continue to use it and the victim wasn't using it at the time.
Sometimes I wonder if mutualists are even aware that under mutualist property rules, people would hoard as much land as they could be considered "using" under the letter of the law and extort the same "usurious" land prices, except that you would have to buy in full to use the land at all. Plus, with interest kept low, that land would be worth ... let's just say, a lot.
Published: June 19, 2006 11:36 AM
Yancey: "What is the purpose of a valid theory of property rights beyond one's ability to defend the property in anarchy?"
I reject the view that some libertarians seem to maintain that "property rights" (Lockean or otherwise)can be rooted in some sort of conception of metaphysics or are somehow decreed by the Gods, the Cosmos or Nature. In a Hobbesian "state of nature", you have whatever "property" you can get by buying, begging, borrowing, gifts from others, pillaging, plundering, raping, killing, etc. You get to keep this "property" (whether in land, goods, chattel, women or whatever) to the degree that you can successfully ward off those who would take it from you. "Property rights", like "human rights", "civil rights", "individual rights", "States' rights" and so on, is an intellectual, cultural, political and legal construct designed to settle disputes over contending claims to resources in a less bloody manner, thereby making social existence more bearable. This is why societies typically establish legal or cultural taboos against theft, killing, maiming, etc.
Quasibill: "Does your right to the land allow you to build a skyscraper on your land? How about if there is currently an airport nearby that requires that planes be able to fly over your property at 300 feet? What if that airport was in existence for 30 years before you bought the property (and leaving the question of noise nuisance aside)?
Going in the other direction, we know that the earth is a sphere (or close to one), so how we draw those lines? Or should we even do that? Given your preference (which I tend to share) that whoever first liberates a resource into usable form gets ownership, what's wrong with slant drilling? Or mining under another's surface property, so long as you don't damage their support (my state, PA, has quite a bit of case law dealing with this very issue)."
This is why a "one size fits all" approach to "property rights" doesn't work. Any workable approach to property rights by a real-life legal system would have to combine abstract theoretical considerations (Lockean, mutualist or otherwise) with matters of custom and habit, sets of negotiations and agreements worked out by contending parties in particular instances, and the formulation of these into a body of case, customary or common law to be referenced as an authoritative precedent for the sake of maintaining stability, predictability or continuity in property relations or legal structures.
"(it's always easier to tax fewer, centralized businesses than it is to tax a truly mobile, de-centralized, free market economy - that's why the socialist governments in Africa quickly acted to destroy the traditional property rights of nomadic hunter-gatherers, leading to today's poverty)"
Excellent example! And here's a piece by Wendy McElroy illustrating the effects of European imperialism on Africa:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy55.html
Vince: "an individual really cannot own the land at all, whether by mutualist, communist, Lockean, Hoppean, or Rothbardian conception - as long as the state is involved, we are but simple tenants."
Amen to that one, too!
Published: June 19, 2006 11:43 AM
Vince: "an individual really cannot own the land at all, whether by mutualist, communist, Lockean, Hoppean, or Rothbardian conception - as long as the state is involved, we are but simple tenants."
how about rather than paying the state one is actually paying your neighbors directly who you are directly excluding?
Published: June 19, 2006 11:52 AM
"2) is irrelevant to determining *whose* property claim, for which they're fighting, is more morally valid. 1) is not a reason to prefer mutualist property rules, since it also requires "use" to be definied, and in fact tags on the additional problem of what constitutes "abandonment."
Agreed. That's one of the reasons why I stated in my previous post that, ANY system of property rights, to be workable, has to take into account a variety of considerations and, more or less arbitrarily, attempt to strike a balance among these considerations.
Published: June 19, 2006 11:53 AM
The use and occupancy stricture applies to realty, not personalty.
The theory of mutualism is such that it recognizes as legitimate ownership in land predicated on use and occupancy. Other claims are not recognized under the theory; therefore, it makes no sense to call the tenant a "thief". You are mixing your theories here. Presumably, in a society practicing mutualism, the landholder would know that renting the land would not be recognized as an enforceable arrangement.
Published: June 19, 2006 12:29 PM
Yancey,
"It seems to me that the mutualists simply accept that the owner of any property is the one who is more willing to fight for it, thereby demonstrating the greatest need; and any intervention of third parties to the conflict is a violation of the natural rights of one or both of the original contestants."
Doesn't appear to be true to me. In actuality, they would just consent to a different set of property rules than an Austrian AnCap would. They don't believe in "might makes right" anymore than an Austrian AnCap does, rather, they believe that they would resolve disputes according to a different set of rules.
I'll agree that, at this point, I don't prefer their set of rules in certain areas, based on both utilitarian and philosophical grounds. However, it is important to note that this is a preference, not some sort of universal truth.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:01 PM
Re: Vache Folle
Presumably, in a society practicing mutualism, the landholder would know that renting the land would not be recognized as an enforceable arrangement.
This was what I found absurd about Reisman's argument that mutualist property arrangements interfere with freedom of contract. The would-be landlord is perfectly free to sign a contract with the would-be tenant, but surely, he must know beforehand that no one will help him enforce it.
It seems as if Reisman believes that mutualist property relations could be somehow imposed on a Misesian society. But who would do the enforcing? Security agencies, arbitration agencies, etc., would make decisions on the basis of custom --- in a mutualist society, the would-be landlord would be out of luck (and deserve it, for being stupid); in a Misesian society, the tenant would be evicted.
In my opinion, mutualist property arrangements are fairer, more rational, and more productive of liberty than capitalist ones. But unless my neighbours are willing to help me enforce those property arrangements, my opinion doesn't matter much, does it?
Published: June 19, 2006 1:17 PM
quasibill,
As a "practical" implementation of the mutualist philosophy, it may be the case that the mutualists would agree to definitions of "use", "abandonment", and other such terms that still allow a degree of absentee ownership of properties (but it would not be mutualism any longer). However, I was referencing to the anarchist component to the philosophy. In anarchy, how do you implement the mutualist creed?
It appears to me that true anarchy is the cornerstone of their philosophy since it is the absence of a state that prevents the ownership of any property beyond what one can use, hide, and/or defend physically one's self. Any step beyond this limit is a violation of the philosophy.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:30 PM
I've always thought the leftie forms of anarchism to be nothing more than justifications for theft.
Some of the examples cited by Keith in support of Keven Carson's position strike me as simple red herrings. Under libertarianism, there is also a theory of abandonment. If someone either decrees abandonment, or it is clear that someone has abandoned property -- as the case with run down buildings -- then it reverts to an unowned status, and first homesteaders have just claim to it. What currently happens in that situation is irrelevant to the position of anarcho-capitalism, except that ancaps may have criticisms of it.
Certainly, it is not abandonment when I leave my house to go to work, or go on vacation. It certainly does not justify some bums stepping into my house and using it for shelter while I'm gone. And of course, Carson's absurd theory would also mean I'd abandoned all of the sentimental items in my home: e.g., pictures of my family. These would all be up for grabs -- or destruction -- by bums.
Let's say that some middle-class person living in a neighborhood leaves their home for a vacation. Now, some horny teenagers notice this, and decide that they're going to occupy use of this property at least until the home-owners get back. So, they go in there and have sex on every surface in the house. Hell, let's say they invite some more of their heathen friends over, and have an orgy. So, of course, the property is completely defiled. When the home-owners get back, they are outraged and disgusted. Maybe one of them has OCD, and their previously clean and ordered house is now in complete chaos; with various items destroyed or otherwise defiled; there are broken beer bottles all over the place; and there is a bunch of naked punk teenagers passed out laying on the floors, couches, and beds. Of course, the homeowners would be outraged. In their defense, the awakening drunkard libertines note that, "Well, the theory of mutualism states that as you were absent, we were justified in 'occupying' this house, at least until you return".
I provided this example to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of mutualism. There is a very clear conceptual difference between absenteeism and abandonment. In practice, the difference is very clear in the vast majority of cases, as well.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:51 PM
posted by Keith Preston
In my city, houses and apartment buildings are all over the place that have, quite literally, been abandoned by their "owners". Typically, these buildings are dilapidated to the point where they are unsafe or extremely unattractive for people of any means whatsoever. Consequently, they are squatted by people from various marginalized populations, usually drug addicts, vagrants, drunks, homeless teenagers or runaways, the lowest level street prostitutes and other similar figures.
Of course I do not know where you are, but this sounds an awful lot like the results of rent control and a superabundance of subsidies for low-income housing. Once the subsidies run out and only the controls are left, the properties effected are reduced to their "market ideal" form; specifically, burned out, run down hovels no one in his right mind would want to live in or maintain. We have those in my area too, and I suspect virtually anywhere in the U.S. with a median or higher population does.
Pellinore
Published: June 19, 2006 1:52 PM
"Well, these "injustices" from the past are the foundation of the present state of social, economic and class relations. I doubt you would take such a defensive attitude towards the status quo built upon prior expropriations by Commie regimes, like Cuba or North Korea? Why let the state-capitalists/corporate-mercantilists off the hook?"
If it were possible to buy out Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-Il's regime in exchange for freedom for Cubans and Koreans then I would support it without reservation. Better freedom and peace than more conflict and war in the name of correcting past injustices. All that does is perpetuate the injustice.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:54 PM
"In anarchy, how do you implement the mutualist creed?"
The same way you would implement a capitalist creed in anarchy - 1) brute force - you have bigger weapons than everyone else and can defend your claims; 2) general cultural agreement within the local area, whereby you agree with like minded neighbors to certain dispute resolution mechanisms and security services, eventually leading to a uniformity of local ethics in that dissenters are killed or forced to leave the area; or 3) get a large block of land, invite settlers/citizens, and create your own city-state that includes binding covenants upon all who enter the property.
There may be others, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
"It appears to me that true anarchy is the cornerstone of their philosophy since it is the absence of a state that prevents the ownership of any property beyond what one can use, hide, and/or defend physically one's self. Any step beyond this limit is a violation of the philosophy."
That appears to be more of Reisman's strawman than anything else. As several have noted, there are distinctions made between personalty and realty, just as there are in the common law (which is as close to a free-market, all-encompassing body of law that we have). I have never seen anyone, except of course Reisman's strawman, argue that personalty is subject to the same rules as realty in mutualism.
Further, again, they don't appear to believe in might makes right anymore than Austrians do. They would agree to certain property rules, and those rules would be enforced in the same way Austrian property rules would be enforced in anarchy.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:57 PM
Yancey,
"What is the purpose of a valid theory of property rights beyond one's ability to defend the property in anarchy?"
I still maintain that arguing for a rationally deduced theory of property rights is one way (among others) to help defend those rights. However, your asssertion that...
"the mutualists simply accept that the owner of any property is the one who is more willing to fight for it, thereby demonstrating the greatest need"
...sounds an awful lot like might-makes-right. Using that reasoning, the mutualist's is tenant/landlord viewpoint is worthless if I'm more powerful.
Besides, a greater willingness to fight would not ensure victory, & neither willingness nor victory demonstrates greater need. So either you phrased that sloppily or mutualism is less reasoned than I thought.
Vince,
I'm not sure I actually said that, but it's totally true nonetheless. If my understanding of mutualist theory as explained by Yancey is correct then the state is the legitimate owner of my property - & yours - since they're bigger & stronger than I am & I can't possibly fight them off violently by myself alone.
Published: June 19, 2006 1:58 PM
Keith,
“I reject the view that some libertarians seem to maintain that "property rights" (Lockean or otherwise)can be rooted in some sort of conception of metaphysics or are somehow decreed by the Gods, the Cosmos or Nature.�
I get more the feeling that you reject property rights period. What you advocate is the might makes right view. The strongest group of brutes who are the most willing to aggress and do battle, is the one most justified in possessing property (as long as this group “uses� this property of course).
“In a Hobbesian "state of nature", you have whatever "property" you can get by buying, begging, borrowing, gifts from others, pillaging, plundering, raping, killing, etc.�
I reject that pillaging, plundering, raping and murdering are justified methods of property appropriation. They are property violations. But this is only apparent to one who recognizes the validity of private property in the first place.
“You get to keep this "property" (whether in land, goods, chattel, women or whatever) to the degree that you can successfully ward off those who would take it from you.�
This system is no ethic, but rather an invitation for further conflict and aggression. The purpose of an ethic is to provide for conflict avoidance, not provide an environment that encourages conflict. Why advocate anarchy when the state is such a powerful and despotic aggressor already. Certainly the great might of the state, under this Hobbesian ethic, makes it the most right of all.
Published: June 19, 2006 2:14 PM
The difference between a Georgist and a Mutualist:
Under a Mutualist system of land ownership there would be a helluva lot of unowned land to freely homestead but not much economic rent to collect.
Under a Georgist system of land ownership there would be a helluva lot of economic rent to collect and distribute and not much unowned land to homestead.
Published: June 19, 2006 2:31 PM
Anonymous Anarchist,
Vache: “Presumably, in a society practicing mutualism, the landholder would know that renting the land would not be recognized as an enforceable arrangement.�
AA: “This was what I found absurd about Reisman's argument that mutualist property arrangements interfere with freedom of contract. The would-be landlord is perfectly free to sign a contract with the would-be tenant, but surely, he must know beforehand that no one will help him enforce it.�
Let me just summarize my impression of the mutualist community under (libertarian?) anarchy. It’s slowly coming into focus, but do correct me where I’m mistaken:
It is a libertarian system (this was hard for me to perceive this at first).
Everyone in the community is or can be a property owner to the extent that he continues to use and can continue to defend his property.
By implication, or by explicit covenantal agreement, everyone agrees not to rent out any resource they own, or they will be immediately subject to confiscation of that resource by the renter. This is because such a contract would be a violation of the covenant and would be unenforceable by the first owner.
By covenantal agreement, every resource that was once owned, but that is currently unused is currently unowned. For instance, the shovel in my shed, my shed, and my back yard, which are all currently not in use, are also presently unowned, and subject to legitimate acquisition by someone who happens on it and can break down the gate and kill my (for sake of argument) guard dog, etc.
By covenantal agreement, the stranger who just broke into my house, which is currently empty and unused while I work, would also, by virtue of his using the house now, now own it.
It would be agreed that we would not seek the services of security guards and warehouse facilities to safely store our property because by covenantal agreement, it is the possessor who necessarily owns the property and if the warehouse confiscates your property, it is because it is his property, not yours because of course he possesses it, not you.
Am I missing anything, understating or overstating the implications?
If I’m close, here’s my assessment: Nobody will live in your mutualist community except perhaps the criminally insane. The rest must be forced against their will. You’ll need a state for this purpose. You’ll also need a state to arbitrarily assign who really does own a resource because no one could live under such chaotic circumstances otherwise, even if they wanted to. Because of human nature, your voluntary mutualist anarchy is a wild illusion. What you’d need is a great leader like Stalin to keep it in tact.
Published: June 19, 2006 3:18 PM
Paul,
"For instance, the shovel in my shed, my shed, and my back yard, which are all currently not in use, are also presently unowned, and subject to legitimate acquisition by someone who happens on it and can break down the gate"
I think a mutualist would draw a distinction between personal possessions not used in pursuit of economic profits vs. those used in pursuit of economic profits as they (mutualists) don't recognize the legitimacy of property rights in pursuit of economic rent, economic interest, and economic profits particularly as it relates to the alienation of labor from ownership/occupancy/use.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:02 PM
Forgot to add - as economic rent, economic interest, and economic profit are only available to the rent seekers, usurers, and labor exploiters based on the government granted privileges granted and codified in law via supposedly nuetral property relations.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:07 PM
Paul Edwards,
Am I missing anything, understating or overstating the implications?
I'm glad you're trying to understand this. I think, though, you're missing the idea of "occupancy and use" in mutualist property relations. It doesn't mean "I'm occupying or using this piece of property right now." It means more along the lines of "A normal member of my society would regard me as occupying or using this piece of property." It's normal use of your house to get up in the morning, and leave it to go to work. It's normal to go on vacation and come back. No one would consider your house abandoned and subject to homesteading for those reasons. If you left for five years and let it become run down with the roof falling in, certainly. If you left town for a year without telling your neighbours and no one asking about the house could find out the status of it, probably. And if you explicitly said, "I'm not going to live in this house, and I'm going to let someone else live in it instead," as in the case of the would-be landlord, then you certainly wouldn't be considered to be occupying and using it. Now, disputes over whether or not some real property was or wasn't in use would certainly happen sometimes. But this would generally be resolved by the parties involved agreeing to arbitration by a third party or third parties (such as a jury).
As for your shovel, most mutualists don't consider personal, movable possessions as equivalent to real estate in this respect. Your shovel is your shovel. Land is a special case, because it's not a product of labor.
I hope that clears up some of your misunderstandings about mutualist views of property rights. I understand it is hard to get an accurate view of something when you are hearing about it mainly from its opponents.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:12 PM
So why exactly can I not "use" a house for rental income? Exactly what principle does that violate?
Published: June 19, 2006 5:18 PM
Also...
"Land is a special case, because it's not a product of labor."
I don't buy that, but even if I did, isn't the house a product of labor, & thus valid property by your definition? So why can't I rent it out?
Published: June 19, 2006 5:24 PM
Steve,
In the case of "using" the house for rental income, you're not using the house -- you're extracting wealth based on someone else's use of it. I understand that it's a different way of looking at things. If you assume Lockean property in land, then rent makes sense, but it just doesn't get along with occupancy and use.
As for the house being a product of labor, it certainly is, and it's perfectly sensible for you to sell me a house (prefab, or build-to-order), but a house is tied to land in a way other possessions really aren't.
I understand the arguments about land being a product of labor (discovery, surveying, improvement, etc.), but in my opinion, if you accept them, along with Lockean property, you are opening up a bigger can of worms than occupancy and use does! See quasibill's comments above about the New World and Kieth Preston's about Gilligan's island.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:37 PM
Paul,
You're misinterpreting my argument.
"I get more the feeling that you reject property rights period. What you advocate is the might makes right view. The strongest group of brutes who are the most willing to aggress and do battle, is the one most justified in possessing property (as long as this group “uses� this property of course)."
What I am saying is that this is how things work in a Hobbesian state of nature. Most people find this to be an unattractive way of life, for good reason, so different kinds of people-economists, philosophers, lawyers, political theorists, clergy and others-come together to formulate alternative ways of doing things like "property rights", "human rights", "civil rights" or what have you. These are social, cultural and intellectual constructs, not anything that exists in nature like the sun, moon or trees. Perhaps they are useful and important constructs, but constructs nonetheless, like any other kinds of civil law or cultural taboos. You seem to be arguing that "property rights" are something more like Plato's Forms (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think such a view is rational.
"I reject that pillaging, plundering, raping and murdering are justified methods of property appropriation. They are property violations. But this is only apparent to one who recognizes the validity of private property in the first place."
Well, they may not be "justified" (however you define that term) but they are still methods of acquiring property as any common street thug will tell you.
"This system is no ethic, but rather an invitation for further conflict and aggression. The purpose of an ethic is to provide for conflict avoidance, not provide an environment that encourages conflict. Why advocate anarchy when the state is such a powerful and despotic aggressor already. Certainly the great might of the state, under this Hobbesian ethic, makes it the most right of all."
The Hobbesian state of nature is not a ethic, I agree, but merely a condition or situation. "Property rights" is indeed an ethic, albeit a subjective one in my view. Because I regard property rights as subjective does not mean that I reject property rights in toto anymore that my skepticism concerning the view that "life begins at conception" means that I advocate carte blanche homocide. My skepticism of the claims of animal rights activists that animals should be given the same legal or social rights as humans does not mean that I am in favor of gratuitious cruelty to animals, either. There's a such thing as formulating a system of social, political and legal ethics based on deductive reasoning and a balanced consideration of contending needs, interests and points of view. However, this does not mean that any conclusions reached are not still subjective.
You don't think there's going to be conflict in an an-cap system where everyone buys whatever laws they want from whatever private court anyone wants to set up and then hires whatever mercenary army they want to enforce them? I suspect there would be quite a bit of conflict in such a system. It may not be any worse than the present system, but I doubt it would be a paradise of peace and understanding either.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:51 PM
Thank-you for the responses,
I see now that RalphBorsodi’s reference to the Georgists in this context is more relevant than i had realized. So land is a special case; we are getting further.
I'm interested to hear the answer to xteve’s question too. Also, can the mutualist rent out his
capital equipment
horse
car
shovel
and expect to have it returned according to the contract? Is it purely land that the mutualist expects people will wish to voluntarily prevent themselves from benefiting from rental agreements, but they will accept all other forms of rental transactions? If I’m on track with this, is it a tricky question to ask if I can rent out an apartment on the 20th floor of an apartment building without risking loss of my property? What would be the outcome in mutualist anarchy?
I have to say, this idea of land as a special case strikes me now, as it did when discussing Georgist theory, as arbitrary, unnecessary and unsatisfactory.
Published: June 19, 2006 5:52 PM
"In the case of "using" the house for rental income, you're not using the house -- you're extracting wealth based on someone else's use of it."
I'm not sure how that's different from renting out anything else. If I rent a movie, would a mutualist assert that Netflix is not entitled to my money? After all, they would only be profitting from my use of the movie. They're not using it. It's likely they never use it themselves, only to "extract" my wealth.
As I see it, renting a house, or even a large track of land, is fundamentally no different than renting a DVD. Rather than shell out a larger amount of money for something I only intend to use for a short period of time, I agree to only borrow that thing in exchange for a much smaller amount. It's win/win. No moral transgressions whatsoever.
If indeed there are moral transgressions, then what are they? If not, exactly what's the problem?
Published: June 19, 2006 6:05 PM
Hi Keith,
OK, I see I misinterpreted your intent, sorry. Let us continue to bash away and see how things proceed:
“These are social, cultural and intellectual constructs, not anything that exists in nature like the sun, moon or trees. Perhaps they are useful and important constructs, but constructs nonetheless, like any other kinds of civil law or cultural taboos. You seem to be arguing that "property rights" are something more like Plato's Forms (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think such a view is rational.�
I have to admit ignorance over Plato’s Forms, but let’s see if I can muddle through a response anyways. I agree that what we are discussing, in libertarian ethical norms, is not laws of physics or biology. However, I will argue that they are as praxeologically necessarily true, as any “law� of economics that we ever came up with. Humans must and do act. This we hold as necessarily true. There other things of this nature as well that are neither issues of the sun and the moon, and yet are undeniably true. Libertarian ethical laws are in this realm. They are more than useful and important conventions. They are simple and indisputably necessary human norms that allow for the possibility of conflict avoidance.
This is the essential argument: there is necessarily and indisputably only one way to make conflict avoidance possible. This approach, not a convention, but a set of necessary norms, is contained in the institution of private property, the implied connected concept of original appropriation of previously unowned resources, and also the acknowledgement of contract between property owners. To show this, I argue first of all, that to debate the subject requires that we argue. To argue, we must and do presuppose certain norms; this is undeniable because to deny it would require an argument, and the argument presupposes the norms one would attempt to deny. No arguments that necessarily make such presuppositions can consistently argue and show to be valid any conclusions or propositions that are contradictory to those presuppositions.
The presuppositions of argumentation are that when determining ethical norms, these norms must be universalizable (can be accepted by all in principle), that people are self owners and that people have the right to control (claim property in) other resources that allow them to survive. Note that it is not proven that these presuppositions are true, it is merely that anyone who argues, necessarily presupposes it is true.
All other ethics fail to accomplish the result of making conflict avoidance possible. This ethic, on the other hand, completely succeeds in the goal of making conflict avoidance possible. Therefore, it is the ONLY ethic that is justifiable.
Superficially, this conclusion may sound like it is based more on faith and hope than anything else, but in fact, it is as sound and scientific as is any economic argument ever put forward by Mises. It is an argument based on praxeology.
So from where I am coming, the libertarian ethic is not simply something that libertarians like. It is the only ethic that when you make an argument for it, you don’t end up contradicting the essential and necessary presuppositions of the act of argumentation itself. All others do contradict those presuppositions in some way or another, and in this way, I can say they are not, and cannot be justified.
“You don't think there's going to be conflict in an an-cap system where everyone buys whatever laws they want from whatever private court anyone wants to set up and then hires whatever mercenary army they want to enforce them? I suspect there would be quite a bit of conflict in such a system. It may not be any worse than the present system, but I doubt it would be a paradise of peace and understanding either.�
I think it is very important and certainly very interesting to discuss how justice might come about in an an-cap system and I’ve read some very good material on the subject. However, if I could put the practical details away for a very interesting discussion at a later time, allow me to remain with the theoretical argument a while longer.
I would say, human nature being what it is, that there is no possibility that conflict will in fact be avoided entirely. What I mean when I say “conflict avoidance is possible�, is it allows people to avoid conflict if they want to; it is inherently just, and provides principles that one can apply consistently to achieve what will be in the long run, the most correct and fair arbitration in disputes. This is because it is theoretically founded in the only norms that actually can allow such an outcome in the first place. Human error may prevent the system from providing perfect results, but the system itself is correct, given humans are involved in the process.
As an important outcome of this, while it is very true that through a collection of agreements and contracts or a covenant, libertarians can, in an an-cap environment, put restrictions on each other and their use of property, they cannot, on the other hand, abolish private property itself and yet still claim to have a system that allows for conflict avoidance. Any non-libertarian agreements to eliminate private property must encourage conflict. Finally, any libertarian agreements that are contrary to human nature, such as disallowing landed property or contracts involving landed property, will not be voluntarily adopted and in the end will require state coercion to maintain.
Published: June 19, 2006 6:59 PM
Had the state(s) not intervened to the extent that they have, I don't think society would look anything like it does today,
But of what possible relevance is that? If different things had happened in the past, things would be different today. True. So what? The world today is as it is today. The only relevant question is what to do from here. Even if you could somehow determine what would have been had things been different (which is utterly impossible), it wouldn't necessarily be the Right Thing to move towards that state of affairs.
Published: June 19, 2006 10:42 PM
This isn't a concrete ethical critique, but I'm surprised no-one has noted that under the left-anarchist systems, capital accumulation is impossible, because ownership is associated with possession. So, it becomes impossible for people to make plans, without the resources they set aside for capital accumulation for the funding of something in the future...being disturbed by others. This means such a society can barely grow any richer.
It seems to me that a social system which would mandate massive poverty and prevent any societal progress...is fundamentally unethical. I believe there is a very close -- possibly inseparate -- connection between the moral / legitimate system by Natural Law, and the progress of civilization.
Published: June 20, 2006 1:25 AM
David,
It is a very cool thing to recognize that the (libertarian) ethic which happens to maximize wealth also is the only ethic that can be justified. But I guess the tone of the thread was set on an ethical rather than economic note from the start, and amazingly, we didn’t deviate from that direction. But I agree with your point. A prohibition against rental agreements is unnatural, in that it is contrary to the fundamental essence of private property and human nature, and it would severely diminish the prospect for prosperity by severely hamstringing the capitalistic mechanism which would deepen the structure of production. It is not a norm that people would find themselves generally wishing to limit themselves to, and therefore they would not, except under the coercive influence of the state.
Published: June 20, 2006 1:56 AM
"Finally, any libertarian agreements that are contrary to human nature, such as disallowing landed property or contracts involving landed property, will not be voluntarily adopted and in the end will require state coercion to maintain."
Except the historical record belies your assertion that private ownership of land is human nature. In fact, most societies have had commons or land that wasn't privately owned. Human nature is not the objective portrait you are trying to paint it to be.
Once again, I find it humorous that so many professed Austrians proclaim that there is an objective set of values held by all humans beings.
I tend to agree that private property in land is preferrable, but I also think that adverse possession is a valid component of real property law, and think that in fact the time component is too long. If you don't kick squatters off your property for 5 years, I'm not sure your claim to the real property is all that strong.
And again, the difference between real property and personal property has a long historical pedigree. Look no further than the fact that we have two separate terms in English for the types of property! Also, as I described previously, there are issues with defining the extent of claims in real property, and especially here in the U.S., most paper title has its origin in theft or robbery. There are a myriad of legitimate reasons why realty is subject to different rules than personalty.
Published: June 20, 2006 7:45 AM
Paul Edwards,
Since no mutualist has stepped forward to answer your question (though David Heinrich alluded to the answer), I will answer it based on my understanding of the philosophy.
You asked if a mutualist can rent out capital equipment. The answer would be no. This would be identical to asking the person to work for wages which is anathema to the mutualists I have encountered. To do so is to extract economic rent from this person without laboring yourself. You can sell the capital equipment to the workers, but you cannot employ others to work it and extract a profit from their labor.
Published: June 20, 2006 9:07 AM
Also - why would anyone want to rent capital equipment when they would have such easy access to a mutual credit clearing system?
Published: June 20, 2006 12:19 PM
RalphBorsodi,
Like the owner of a house who would have to be a moron to try to rent the property in a mutualist society, I would also have to be a moron to lend at cost to any member of a mutualist society who could simply regard my loan as his property once taking possession of it.
Published: June 20, 2006 12:38 PM
Quasibill,
PE: "Finally, any libertarian agreements that are contrary to human nature, such as disallowing landed property or contracts involving landed property, will not be voluntarily adopted and in the end will require state coercion to maintain."
Quasibill: “Except the historical record belies your assertion that private ownership of land is human nature.�
History shows also that states have existed, men have been aggressive and tyrannical against other men; many lies have been told and believed and many wars have been fought, killing many millions and destroying much property all for nothing; murders have been committed, and property has been stolen. All this is true and history confirms it.
But I am not saying aggression and lack of respect for property is not inherent in the uncivilized human being, the statist and the dupe. I’m saying that people who value peace and prosperity (the majority of men not living under the influence of a state) that have had the knowledge of what makes peace possible have always advocated private ownership in land and other property.
It is inherent in man to need objective borders around scarce resources and objective, justifiable links to their owners in order to avoid conflict.
“In fact, most societies have had commons or land that wasn't privately owned. Human nature is not the objective portrait you are trying to paint it to be.�
Observing that coercive states have historically enforced non-libertarian norms on people is not a proof that people would choose them voluntarily. On the contrary, it suggests that coercion was necessary. In the case where these norms are voluntarily chosen, they fail economically, and the system will either dissolve by voluntary choice, or be maintained strictly by the initiation of violence.
Finally, where property is pooled voluntarily and successfully, it is still necessarily done within the framework of private property ownership. People must have the right to private property to voluntarily donate it to a collective ownership.
“Once again, I find it humorous that so many professed Austrians proclaim that there is an objective set of values held by all humans beings.�
In contrast, I find it frustrating that statists point to coercive encroachments of the state on people of the past as being somehow a justification of such behavior in theory. People who are not severely deluded and who are not coerced do not choose to be stripped of private property rights. And those foolish and deluded soles who choose it, will be soon disillusioned and will wish for private property once again. There are many facts that can be logically deducted through praxeology, and this is one of them.
Published: June 20, 2006 1:41 PM
Paul,
You're going to have to do a little more work on anthropology and history to support your arguments. Commons existed in the absence of coercive governments (and in fact, were often seized and "privatized" by coercive governments).
Just as one easily accessible example - go rent "The Gods Must Be Crazy" (the first 1. #2 is not nearly as good). Here is a tribe that exists with extensive commons, in the absence of a coercive state. Observe the main character, and how he is not impressed with modern life. You, clearly, disagree with his assessment, but there you go - you two have subjective value assessments. Of course, as a Rand-roid, you'll claim yours are objectively superior to his, but that's not Austrian. It's Rand-roid.
Then, when you're ready to learn a little more, read "governing the Commons" and read about the many diverse, complicated systems that arose historically to deal with commons problems. Some examples in the book could be classified as coercive or state-like, but in the end, they are only as much so as an An-Cap condominium community.
Then, consider the U.S. north atlantic fishing industry until the 1940s - a non-coercive form of regulating a commons. And one, that I might add, has only been made worse by the coercive government stepping in to try to make private property rights.
Then, travel to Eastern Africa, and observe the horrors caused by socialist governments forcing nomads off of common property to live more "modern" and "productive" lifestyles. View the poverty caused by ignoring the traditional knowledge held by the nomadic cultures involved.
But, hey, you love that grinding poverty caused by socialist coercion, because these people were merely dupes, not smart enough to recognize that you have all the answers and disapprove of their arrangements, and instead needed the benifence of private property forced upon their ignorant lives, right?
Just because people don't share your Rand-roid values does not make them dupes or thieves. And accusing them of being such (or me of being statist) shows more about the consistency of your professed belief in subjective value than anything else.
Published: June 20, 2006 2:01 PM
In response to Keith's "Gilligan's Island" scenario:
As I recall, the shipwrecked victims of the show did not claim the whole island for themselves, nor did they ever fully explore the island. They did claim a portion for housing, etc. It would have been ridiculous for them to force newcomers back to the sea, given the plentiful resources and the fact that they were always whining about how lonely they were. It is hard to imagine anyone wanting to bunk with Gilligan unless you were REALLY lonely.
I think a more suitable situation for you to pose would be one where the survivors never made it to an island but were stuck on a raft at sea with limited food and drink, only to have more survivors swim to the raft.
Although in Gilligan's Island, everyone seemed quite content with Mary-Ann's coconut cream pies and the professor's bamboo/coconut HAM radio sets. The professor even lent his sugarcane ethanol A/C power supply to Ginger so she could use her curling iron once in a while - for a nominal "fee" of course.
Published: June 20, 2006 2:50 PM
Yancey-
Mutualism is based on the principle of reciprocity.
Credit is part of the social commons and the economic interest charged is not privatized.
Published: June 20, 2006 3:14 PM
Ralph,
I guess this credit system is another example of the gift economy that Robin Cox was pitching here last week. You guys really, really need a primer on human nature.
Published: June 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Quasibill,
“You're going to have to do a little more work on anthropology and history to support your arguments…
“Just as one easily accessible example - go rent "The Gods Must Be Crazy" ... Here is a tribe that exists with extensive commons, in the absence of a coercive state.�
LOL! That’s good. OK, I am weak in anthropology, I admit, so I am glad that this movie can help me in this area because I have watched it more than once.
For starters, they accept private property do they not? Tell me this: do they believe in self ownership? Did they believe anyone can hit anyone else if they want? If I recall they were libertarians on this count as people had the right not to be hit on the head with a bottle. Secondly, did they own their clothes and the tent? Do you think they would see an invader as justified in taking their clothes and their tent and dousing their fire at night for fun? Do you think they feel they had a right to the food that they collected or if someone took it would it not be theft? I think they believe in property.
But further, if there arose conflict over the scarce resource of animal meat, or land or roots, do you think they would lay down and die, or would they feel justified in defending their means of sustenance. If the former, they will indeed eventually lay down and die. If the latter, they have an implicit belief in property. Their problem is they may not have a sufficiently elaborated theory of property to avoid either extinction or conflict. Property is inherent and necessary in a sustainable culture that wishes to avoid conflict. It is not just my opinion, it is a fact.
“Observe the main character, and how he is not impressed with modern life. You, clearly, disagree with his assessment, but there you go - you two have subjective value assessments. Of course, as a Rand-roid, you'll claim yours are objectively superior to his, but that's not Austrian. It's Rand-roid.�
quasibill, You’re killing me here. You’re not going to believe this, but I’ve never read Rand; ever; at all. But I’ll take the accusation as intended, LOL. I am not saying I disagree with this tribe’s lifestyle exactly. What I’m saying is they already do and must accept the concept of property; they just don’t apply it in the extensive manner necessary to allow them to survive in the long run, or avoid conflict. They have no objective link to the animals that they hunt, so there can be conflict over their use. If another tribe hunts the animals they hunt, they can expect conflict because there is no objective link to those resources and an owner. It’s not a question of a superior life-style. It’s an objective fact that resources are scarce and there can be conflict over them. It is simply only the institution of private property that allows this conflict to be avoided.
“Then, when you're ready to learn a little more, read "governing the Commons" and read about the many diverse, complicated systems that arose historically to deal with commons problems. Some examples in the book could be classified as coercive or state-like, but in the end, they are only as much so as an An-Cap condominium community.�
When I’m ready to learn a little more? LOL. You’re knocking me out with all this assistance. You say some examples in the book could be classified as “coercive or state-like�? I’m sure they could and that many of us would. You say you consider an an-cap condominium community as coercive and state-like? I do believe you would.
Let me skip back to the chase. None of the means you or anyone else will propose will allow for conflict avoidance if they RULE OUT ownership in private property. Private property is necessary for voluntary, conflict free action. You can agree to pool property communally, but at the base of this, there must be an acknowledgement of a right to private property.
“But, hey, you love that grinding poverty caused by socialist coercion, because these people were merely dupes, not smart enough to recognize that you have all the answers and disapprove of their arrangements, and instead needed the benifence of private property forced upon their ignorant lives, right?�
I don’t think you could misconstrue my position more if you actually made it your objective to do so. Private property is the necessary corollary to liberty. Do you think private property is something that can be coercively inflicted on people? LOL. Free people already believe in private property. Your coke bottle wielding community recognized the need for private property long before the arrival of that bottle. But certainly, they got a taste of what happens when people contest over an “unowned� valuable and scarce resource. They get conflict. If they avoided this conflict over the bottle by destroying the bottle, conflict must only re-emerge in food, or land or other things eventually. They could have avoided the conflict over the coke bottle, by the way, by assigning ownership of it to the finder. What a drag, huh? But still I liked the movie.
“Just because people don't share your Rand-roid values does not make them dupes or thieves. And accusing them of being such (or me of being statist) shows more about the consistency of your professed belief in subjective value than anything else.�
Well, I guess I’m arguably too harsh, and I’m sorry about that. But it’s what I believe. The position that private property can be abolished and all can still be well and conflict can still be avoided is simply foolish. I don’t believe that is merely opinion, I think it has been shown to be a fact. But in any event, quasibill, relax; I get carried away. Have you never let your contempt for someone’s position show through?
Published: June 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Yancey-
Mutualist are individualist anarchists and thus believe in markets and money without the benefit of government granted privilege whereas anarcho-communists are collectivist anarchists and therefore don't believe in either markets or exchange (aka gift economy).
Published: June 20, 2006 4:30 PM
Ralph, et al. in the mutualist camp
Except that markets are meaningless without stable property rights. In mutalism-land I will not need to save and invest to buy your property - I will just wait till you go to work, or on vacation, or I can just claim your dirty attic/basement.
"Credit is part of the social commons and the economic interest charged is not privatized."
This is another thing that bugs me about mutualists. They are money cranks. They recognize that land is scarce (otherwise who cares how property is appropriated?), but don't extend that principle to everything else. The mutualists are 0% interest rate fetishists.
How can credit be social commons if there exists private property for use? The only way is to not have private property for use in the first place. Which boils down to plain out theft even with property for use. Which is what Yancey, Edwards, & Reisman contend is the actual result of applying mutualist philosophy.
I am simply amazed that people can fall for this mumbo-jumbo, and believe that people will voluntarily engage in trade on a fuzzy notion of property rights amidst hyperinflation.
I'm sure mutualist philosphers have not heard of Gresham's Law, since they persist in thinking that people will voluntarily continue using debased currency.
"Mutualism is based on the principle of reciprocity."
Yeah, indeed. You steal my stuff, I steal your stuff, or I go after another to steal from. The stuff I steal is devalued by another group of thieves printing up certificates of stolen deposit.
@quasibill
"Commons existed in the absence of coercive governments (and in fact, were often seized and "privatized" by coercive governments"
For more information on an AnCap view of the Commons, read: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_1.pdf
I don't agree with everything in this paper, but It's quite sound.
Published: June 20, 2006 5:11 PM
My responses, for anyone interested, can be found here:
There He Goes Again!
Published: June 20, 2006 7:34 PM
quincunx,
Re the "money crankery" and "hyperinflation" issues:
I didn't address this in my post, because I wanted to concentrate on Reisman's criticisms and the comments that subsequently developed them.
But you might want to READ what I actually wrote in my rejoinder to Rothbard on that subject before you go any further in characterizing a doctrine you don't really know anything about.
Published: June 20, 2006 11:06 PM
But you might want to READ what I actually wrote in my rejoinder to Rothbard on that subject before you go any further in characterizing a doctrine you don't really know anything about.
Kevin_Carson, considering that until last week, you didn't even realize that one's home would be worthless collateral under your own desired property rules (and thus wouldn't do much for your interest rates), I'd be careful about lecturing someone about critiquing a doctrine from ignorance. And I don't want to be unfair to you: if you can show me some time before June '06 where you recognized that a home is worthless collateral in mutualism, or gave a "failed business" exception to the use-occupancy rule, I'll be glad to admit my error.
And of course, even if there had been some mutualist society, where people did recognize such an exception, and a reasonable number of people (say, 10%) saw their businesses[1] fail and result in eviction, ... why do I get this strange feeling you would characterize their eviction as unjust and some form of "state intervention", despite such a rigid adherence to mutualism? Or worse, what if they had pledged their future labor as collateral (i.e., a practice you fully endorse and would believe would help drive interest rates down significantly) and then their business failed, effectively making them slaves to a bank. You would have nothing negative to say about such an eventuality, right?
[1]I'm of course, referring here to businesses such as manufacturing Playstation 2's by hand from home using your own hand tools, which is obviously only more efficient in a factory today because of state intervention. Okay, maybe not. But just maybe.
Published: June 20, 2006 11:43 PM
I do not intend to speak for every 'left' anarchist, but I think most 'left' anarchists and some 'right' anarchists would base ownership claims on similar standards.
Basically, use need not be continuous, but it should be clear. Once one person has clear use, other people should restrict use to either (1) noninterfering use (any use of abandoned goods/land is noninterfering use), (2) negotiated agreements (e.g. sales), (3) common sense (e.g. borrowing a hose to stop a fire), and (4) reciprocity.
Further, if people trust someone's word, they will risk small unenforcible agreements, but if they distrust someone's word, they will not. Finally, if the tuxedo rental, tux rental, etc. is a fee for service, people will give it more respect than if it is a tax on some tenants.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:07 AM
Person,
Since I nowhere wrote that homes would be "worthless collateral," in June 2006 or at any other time, my criticism of your reading skills still stands. My comments in my blog post were intended to show how a home *could* serve as collateral consistently with occupancy and use tenure.
Sorry to have disturbed your nap.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:37 AM
Paul,
"Tell me this: do they believe in self ownership?"
I would say yes, although they probably wouldn't necessarily class it as such. However, and this is important to me, self-ownership does NOT immediately imply ownership of anything else. You need a philosophical value applied to self-ownership to make the next step. I have that value (my labor is mine, therefore the product of my labor, in general, should be mine). However, it IS a subjective value, not a logical deduction. It is held be a large number of people, so it seems objective, but it isn't, really. In other words, one can believe in self-ownership and logically not believe in physical property outside of it.
"they just don’t apply it in the extensive manner necessary to allow them to survive in the long run, or avoid conflict."
Here's where you get onto shaky ground, due to your lack of historical and anthropological knowledge. Compare the longevity and peacefulness of this tribe to Western Civilization since Locke. If you don't already know the answer, it's going to make your above statement look extremely foolish.
It takes nothing more than a respect for their personal ownership of themselves to respect their claims, which, in fact, are collective in nature, and not private (none of them claim the land they use as personal property, they claim it as a collective).
"You say some examples in the book could be classified as “coercive or state-like�? I’m sure they could and that many of us would. You say you consider an an-cap condominium community as coercive and state-like? I do believe you would."
You miss the point - these examples are only coercive to the point that people have already agreed to the terms by living there. They are not coerced into staying there. I'm not sure how you could distinguish this from an AnCap condominium that prohibited homosexual lifestyles. This, by the way, is how state-like oorganizations arise in the first place - you get a group of property owners to voluntarily agree to a group of rules that will run with the land, so that all new purchasers of the land will then be subject to the old rules...
"Do you think private property is something that can be coercively inflicted on people? LOL."
Well, since the nomads, like many american indians, believed that the land was owned in common, at least within the tribe, and it took coercive government to break that belief and force them to settle, yes, I would say the available evidence absolutely contradicts your assertion.
Again, be careful conflating realty with personalty.
"If they avoided this conflict over the bottle by destroying the bottle, conflict must only re-emerge in food, or land or other things eventually."
Except they have peacefully avoided such conflict for quite a bit longer than you would like to admit.
"They could have avoided the conflict over the coke bottle, by the way, by assigning ownership of it to the finder. What a drag, huh?"
Not a drag at all. I agree with your preference (despite the fact you keep trying to paint me as a statist or socialist - I actually disagree strongly with some of the basics in Carson's systems - I just admit that, especially with respect to real property, his property rules are logically consistent, and fully capable of working in a voluntary fashion).
"But in any event, quasibill, relax; I get carried away. Have you never let your contempt for someone’s position show through?"
Me? I never get carried away! I am always perfectly in control of my emotions, *&@!
[caught red-handed, the bell ringer slinks away]
Published: June 21, 2006 8:05 AM
Paul,
"Tell me this: do they believe in self-ownership?"
I dare say more so than the Austrians!
Government granted privilege that allows private enclosure of the natural (land) and social commons (credit) violates the self-ownership rights of those being excluded to their wages because it rewards behavior that captures value (rent seeking) rather than creates value (wealth).
The economic term for this is "value from obligation" rather than labor inputs.
The private enclosure creates a legal and monetary obligation on those that are excluded that can only be satisfied by sacrificing their absolute right to the fruits of their labor - hence self-ownership itself.
Published: June 21, 2006 8:46 AM
"But you might want to READ what I actually wrote in my rejoinder to Rothbard on that subject before you go any further in characterizing a doctrine you don't really know anything about."
Why don't you argue directly instead of referring to some rejoinder you can't even link.
Maybe I don't know everything about your silly doctrine but when I hear terms like:
Mutualist Bank, Credit belongs to the commons, down with interest, free banking (though not private),
I think: Money Cranks, Hyperinflation, Non-Voluntary.
I maybe wrong, but that is what I hear from your disciples. Maybe they don't get it either.
"I dare say more so than the Austrians!
The private enclosure creates a legal and monetary obligation on those that are excluded that can only be satisfied by sacrificing their absolute right to the fruits of their labor - hence self-ownership itself."
Really? Well then logically, one would have to adopt the ideal Primitivist model where the mere physical existence of a human being prevents another from occupying his space. This individual must be killed, otherwise you can't exercise your self-ownership in standing on his spot.
Published: June 21, 2006 10:47 AM
quincunx,
"...where the mere physical existence of a human being prevents another from occupying his space. This individual must be killed, otherwise you can't exercise your self-ownership in standing on his spot."
All dominion over a specific territory in the plant and animal world is either initiated via force or maintained via force.
Your example would only be true if we were packed in like sardines on the landed surface of the earth.
Published: June 21, 2006 11:57 AM
"All dominion over a specific territory in the plant and animal world is either initiated via force or maintained via force."
And yet it is only one iota more extreme than your position.
"Your example would only be true if we were packed in like sardines on the landed surface of the earth."
Well, in that case mutualist property for use is only necessary when we run out of Lockean non-proviso private property. We have not, aside from state appropriation. Eliminate the state, and maybe in a few thousand years the mutualist position will make slightly more sense, assuming we never get off this planet.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:10 PM
Quincunx,
Why do YOU express an opinion about the ideas in a piece you haven't read, on the basis of a hostile characterization? Both Reisman's review and my rejoinder are available in pdf format at the JLS site, which you can easily track down from here.
I've got writing commitments of my own, and limited time to hang out in discussion threads. So it seems kind of like spoon-feeding to repeat arguments that someone is too lazy to look up before expressing an opinion on them.
But anyway, here it goes: mutual banking is not based on currency inflation, like greenbackers and other 19th century money cranks who thought a limited supply of currency was the main evil. Mutual banking's main point of criticism is the limited competition among banks in the supply of credit, because of market entry barriers like licensing and capitalization requirements. As I pointed out in my rejoinder to Rothbard and Reisman, Rothbard himself made EXACTLY the same criticism of the life insurance industry, which under state regulations was capitalized far beyond simple actuarial requirements. The idea is that, in the supply of ANY good or service, when you've got licensing and other entry barriers limiting the number of people supplying it, they can charge an artificially high price.
Published: June 21, 2006 12:34 PM
"Why do YOU express an opinion about the ideas in a piece you haven't read, on the basis of a hostile characterization? Both Reisman's review and my rejoinder are available in pdf format at the JLS site, which you can easily track down from here."
Actually I have read it, but for some reason thought your off-hand non-linked referral to "Rothbard's rejoinder" was something separate you wrote in the past, something I might have missed (I typically don't remember all subheadings in one paper - which was the case).
"I've got writing commitments of my own, and limited time to hang out in discussion threads. So it seems kind of like spoon-feeding to repeat arguments that someone is too lazy to look up before expressing an opinion on them."
So I take that means you read Reisman's Capitalism in its entirety? Did you skimp through it? Or is your response simply based on what Reisman directed at you?
Please, tell me Mr. Carson, at what point can one express an opinion? When they already agree with you?
By your rules, it seems no one EVER needs to debate anything, afterall, you can just research both sides of the argument and then decide which one is correct. Down with the internet? I suppose.
It's funny that you can post to a thread, and then claim to be too busy to engage in argument. You want a one-way crapshoot, but it doesn't work like that.
"But anyway, here it goes: mutual banking is not based on currency inflation, like greenbackers and other 19th century money cranks who thought a limited supply of currency was the main evil. Mutual banking's main point of criticism is the limited competition among banks in the supply of credit, because of market entry barriers like licensing and capitalization requirements. As I pointed out in my rejoinder to Rothbard and Reisman, Rothbard himself made EXACTLY the same criticism of the life insurance industry, which under state regulations was capitalized far beyond simple actuarial requirements. The idea is that, in the supply of ANY good or service, when you've got licensing and other entry barriers limiting the number of people supplying it, they can charge an artificially high price."
I totally agree with this. My questions are:
You rejoinder to Rothbard, says nothing about whether fractional reserve banking is legitimate or not, what is your opinion on this?
is it OK (in mutualist philosophy) to charge interest on money or not?
If it is OK, why is there a term 'mutual banking' when 'free banking' does the trick? Or a simple elimination of the state would just create 'banks'.
It's sort of like using the term 'mutual car', and being surprised when people mistake it for something else. I don't think there should be regulation on who can make cars, but I wouldn't call this 'mutual car'.
I would think the word 'mutual' sounds awfully close to 'cartel' (mutually beneficial to it's participants & restrictive to competition) as opposed to 'free', therefore I wouldn't use it, unless there something more to 'mutual banking' that I'm missing?
I hope you're not too busy with your writing commitments to answer my simple questions.
Published: June 21, 2006 2:24 PM
Kevin Carson,
In your rejoinder to the critiques of your work you wrote that credit would be cheaper and more widely available absent state granted privilege and state created barriers to entry. I find much to agree with what you have written in this regard, and I doubt many here would disagree. However, do you really think the cost of credit would fall to zero? I can think of few human beings that would lend savings for no return.
Published: June 21, 2006 3:52 PM
RalphBorsodi,
PE: "Tell me this: do they believe in self-ownership?"
RB: I dare say more so than the Austrians!
Ok, that's a yes, we can agree that far, so do they believe in ownership in the food they put their mouth? Yes, they must. They believe they have the right to the exclusive control over the resource which is food that they put in their mouth to survive. This is the justification of private property. And people who argue at all, presuppose its validity. And this is whether they are consistent enough to recognize this is the case, or not.
I think where we differ is this: i say private property, the homesteading principle, and finally, private contract, are all quite necessary concepts to institute, to allow for the pursuit of peace and the avoidance of conflict. I know it sounds like i am just saying my values are better than someone who disputes me, but i am really trying to say it is a simple fact of life which is necessarily true a-priori.
The other view is that private property is a convention, it is arbitrary, it is ok for some, not ok for those who voluntarily reject it. My response is this: those who reject private property necessarily reject the possibili