Geolibertarianism, Private Property & Rights
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Lord Hysteria
Yes, and what does this have to do with the free-market, or private property and voluntary transactions? Since when is my position a kin to imperialism & feudalism which are NOT based on voluntary transactions!
Yes, and what does this have to do with the free-market, or private property and voluntary transactions? Since when is my position a kin to imperialism & feudalism which are NOT based on voluntary transactions!
Let me focus here. It seems our discussions is permeating towards one about private property and the appropriation thereof. Now, I'm not saying that what you are advocating is imperialism or feudalism, but that it amounts to that, because you are ignoring the effects that an unfair distribution of land can have, and also ignoring the fact that private property means nothing if it is not appreciated and reciprocated by the people around you.
In one of the previous posts, there is a suggestion that you believe social contract theory to be completely unfounded, which would mean that you believe that if I claim a certain space to be mine own, by nothing by the virtue of occupying it for a given time, it has become mine. I point you to the food analogy you made:
The dinner I ate was excluive to me.
... well fine, but what's stopping someone from taking a cutlass and gutting you to get that dinner? That is obviously a rather grotesque example, but I hope you understand what I mean. The only thing stopping them is that they recognise that the food is 'yours' and you are entitled to the rights that are conferred by your ownership status of that food, or property. Well, in a social contract scenario anyway.
What would happen in your scenario, and has happened in human history, is that property would be supported by force, and those with property would amass a vast amount of wealth and power, and effectively monopolise the use of force, and use this to create political power for themselves, or in other words, institute a system of feudalism.
There needs to be a check put on the power of landed property, and I believe a land value tax would be thing to do it. And I don't think an argument that 'private property is good' is a sufficient rebuttal of that view.
I think I'll do something different rather than carry on responding to the single-line quotes, instead I'll deal with the substance of your actual piece instead of commenting on your exchange with DRE.
I really don't see what purpose a "descriptive" interpretation of rights serves. The only conceivable interpretation is a one in which what people CAN do is what they have a RIGHT to do. But then, even that seems to be a normative statement. "Rights" form a part of normative discourse and it is a fundamental part of normative language. It makes no sense to think of it as a descriptive word. If a lion eats a gazelle, we can say that it eats a gazelle, that it is able to eat a gazelle, and so forth. To say that it has a right to eat it because it is able to eat it is either (a) a normative statement, not a descriptive one, or (b) just a tautology where the use of "right" serves very little purpose at all.
This seems confused and imprecise. You assert that there is no such thing as land... but then go onto describe what land is. Land is indeed three-dimensional, it is indeed space, it is indeed usually seen as the earth on which we walk, it has the resources from which much else is made, and so forth. It can also be moulded (using one's labour) to meet a diverse range of needs in order to gain a profit (e.g. cinemas, farms and so forth).
The resources for making the laptop came from the ground, most likely. The labour was somebody else's input (or your input in order to earn enough money to purchase the laptop). I don't see where you're going with this distinction. A laptop IS land, but it's land and labour (or, to be truthful, in economics it'd be seen as the product of "land + labour + capital + enterprise").
It is possible to own space, incidentally - if you can exclusively control it. Traditionally, people haven't been allowed to own space (except in a minority of cases), or usually the State has declared control over airspace. But all you seem to have done here is more specifically label "land" to be a specific resource which, as far as I can see, has no detrimental effect on geolibertarian theory, which claims that you can own your labour, but your use of land or resources (on which you labour) requires, perhaps, compensation through a land tax (at least under one form of geolibertarianism).
I think it betrays an egregious misreading of the history of political philosophy to call that claim a "communist assertion". Geolibertarians would most likely happily accept that people have rights just for existing rather than having earnt their rights. The right to free speech, the right not to be murdered, the right not to be raped, and so forth, are not earnt through human action, and I think it's rather odd to shoehorn this in with communism, especially since these sorts of rights were discussed long before the birth of Karl Marx.
It is not problematic for a geolibertarian to assert that people intrinsically ought to have rights (in their view), and yet they have no inherent right to own property unless they compensate people when they use labour upon scarce resources.
Why is this bizarre? It's not unusual for people to claim that people have rights qua existing beings, or qua sentient beings. E.G. Foetuses have a right to life, qua sentient beings. Or I have a right to self-ownership, qua sentient beings. To say that people have rights to scarce goods, qua sentient being with needs, is not a straightforwardly absurd normative claim unless you launch an argument against it - but I don't see one here. Under any form of libertarianism there is a positive obligation put upon every human to respect the law and respect people's rights (and the positive enforcement of keeping property laws). I don't see what problem there is with that.
Furthermore, when geolibertarians talk of "common ownership", they don't mean to say that everyone has exclusive control over resources (which would entail a contradiction), but rather that because of land's special status as "scarce" and "unworked for" (etc.) then it falls into the category of being a morally-arbitrary (or undeserved) as distinct from the products that one creates with one's labour (which are intuitively said to be more deserved). As such, whilst one can own the fruits of one's labour, they accept that the distribution of land is a more complex issue, and therefore (this is where geolibertarians differ), others may be entitled to compensation when people use land (e.g. through a land tax). None of this requires your definition of ownership.
It's a decent theory of rights, but not everyone is obliged to accept that rights have to be transitive in this way (i.e. just because nobody in the collective has a right, it does not necessarily follow that the collective, as a whole, cannot have a right - this is particularly the case when the collective unit [let's say, tax-collectors] are better organised to non-intrusively collect putative entitlements rather than individuals seizing them for themselves).
Quite clearly when people talk of 'collective ownership' they don't speak of ownership as if it were a synonym for exclusive control over a scarce good. You are right there, but it doesn't follow that people don't have rights to free speech or access sidewalks (both of which have very little to do with having exclusive ownership over a scarce resource). I see no line of argument here. I also don't see the problem with people have a prior entitlement to that resource.
1. I don't see how this is an argument against geolibertarianism. It instead seems to be an argument in favour of animal rights. Libertarianism is indeterminate in its stance on animal rights. Many geolibertarians would look in bemusement at your post here and bite the bullet, saying, "well, yeah, I DO believe that it's wrong to lock up animals in zoos", or "well, yeah, I DO believe that we ought not eat animals [read: animals ought to have special rights protecting them]".
2. I think you confuse throw-away thought-experiments with actual reality, because I very much doubt that anybody who says "if there was only one man on the earth ..." really believes that there ever was one man on the earth - they're just illustrating a point.
3. The point about lions snatching Adam's right to roam doesn't seem purposeful. What is being demonstrated here? That non-sentient beings can't respect rights? I think you should think about the "moral agent" and "moral patient" distinction. Lions may have rights as moral patients (much like, arguably, foetuses or babies) but not as moral agents (because they can't think). Many non-sentient pain-feeling organisms fall into the category of moral patients (e.g. the disabled). Sure, a lion might kill somebody, and it would be unlawful for a human to do so because I human is a moral agent who has a duty to respect other people's right to live (or self-ownership, or whatever). Of course, the lion would probably also be killed/punished if it was found to be breaching other people's rights to life.
"The author of the value-system" would be a suitable answer to these questions. When I declare murder to be wrong, it is me who claims what people's rights ought to be (perhaps after consulting social contract theory, or something else). I don't see it as question-begging to do so because I'm not making an argument that requires the conclusion as a premise - it's merely asserting a value-system composed of rights. Everybody necessarily communicates a value-system when they talk about what rights people ought or ought not to have when engaging in political philosophy. You also don't need a God in order to do so - I think that's a pretty silly claim - you're just overreaching yourself there.
So far it seems that you're attacking deontic-geolibertarianism, rather than geolibertarianism as a consequentialist political philosophy.
Myth 2: Private Property is the Product of Human Labour
This is my favourite part of the geolibertarian Lockean mantra, because it doesn't take a lot to shoot-down.
Geolibertarians assert that since man did not create land (i.e. it is not the result of human labour), man is not entitled to own land. But there are no resources on the planet that have been created by humans. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter (or its energy equivalent) can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Fundamentally, nobody "creates" anything. Land, like everything else, is a "product of labor" to the extent that it is initially transformed. According to the Lockean proviso, man is no more entitled to a house than a mountain. He happens to have taken some wood of the floor, and re-arranged it. But the wood is not the product of his labour. Thus, the "man didn't create land" is an utter strawman.
Most geolibertarians would accept that all raw materials going into private property were not created from their labour. Nobody creates anything, as you rightly assert, but this is inconsequential - how does it penetrate the geolibertarian's claim that people use labour upon raw materials (and thus that private property is a product of some form of human labour)? I don't see where the strawman is...
Scarcity does cause private property, but this makes no statement about entitlement. Scarcity (though not just scarcity, it also requires humans) makes it such that property must exist and be privately controlled in some form. The geolibertarian asserts that XYZ's labour makes property XYZ's property. Therefore it is an entitlement theory, identifying who ought to own what property (for without an entitlement theory, one just has anarchy, or 'might is right', and so forth). Therefore you are addressing a different question to the one that a geolibertarian seeks to answer.
No geolibertarian is asserting that private property is created as a result of labour. More accurately, they are saying that private property entitlement is created as a result of one's labour.
This, at least, is a decent criticism of geolibertarianism which is discussed within geolibertarian circles. There are various responses, e.g. the auctioning of land (with tax rates). Though I must say that I'm rather sceptical over the Austrian claim that markets determine the value of all things.
Why would there be no incentive if he's entitled to profit from any private property which he gains using his own labour?
This particular argument is a consequentialist attack on geolibertarianism, and the obvious counter is "where is the King's incentive to use his newly-found resources efficiently if he's not taxed for using the land?"
One continuously labours to meet one's own needs, so in that sense we own ourselves as private property because we labour on ourselves (remember, geolibertarians don't talk about people owning property just because they "create" it, but rather because they labour on it). But anyway, I think is wrong - there's nothing logically barring a geolibertarian from saying that people have rights to self-ownership just because it's a fundamental moral axiom that they hold dear, whilst maintaining that ownership of other property should be based upon desert (namely, one's own contribution of labour upon the resource). I think they're mistaken in their views, but there's not much in what you've said that I'd identify as a good criticism of geolibertarianism.
A geolibertarian would accept that the use of private property is not a zero-sum game, but it doesn't follow that it is not harmful, and indeed, any system that can potentially exclude people from vital resources does have the potential to be harmful, which is where this concern over property entitlement comes in. A geolibertarian would accept that private property improves people's lives, and indeed that our ancestors had tougher lives. They also recognise the problem of the tragedy of the commons. They recognise that scarcity entails exclusivity (and, as you don't mention it, that the more one uses of land, the more one uses scarce resources, and thus the more you exclude - which is potentially harmful). None of this really tackles geolibertarianism, which would happily embrace those points you mention.
It's worth pointing out that geolibertarianism doesn't prevent people from owning land, but instead seeks to prevent other people from monopolising the land on which others (according to your view of freedom) gain their freedom (e.g. to work). All labour must be directed towards land or resources (even in service industries - so it's not an insignificant concern - we need entitlements to space, resources and land in order to survive). So this argument can be used in the geolibertarian's favour.
I also don't agree that your version of freedom is the only desirable form of freedom. Most people don't complain about the fact that choices are limited (which, as you say, is a fact of reality), but rather they complain so that people can change what their choices are (e.g. so that the choice isn't just between starving one's child or starving oneself). People act as a means to an end, but this makes no statement about the unequally distributed and diverse means that are available to different people to reach their desired and various ends. "Coercion" is also a much disputed word, but I shan't digress into that discussion.
Humans DO need land (which includes resources) in order to survive. You need entitlements over certain resources in order to feed yourself, for instance. To tax people for using land is akin to taxing a good that is required in order to exist (not existence, per se), but it is to ensure that everybody can exist in a world where resources are scarce. It is not anybody's fault that land is scarce (it is not a punitive tax, so I don't see why you make appeals to 'fault' or 'culpability'...).
Arguably not inherently objectionable.
Precisely - you've suggested two solutions yourself.
The last solution (auctioning) makes use of a market mechanism.
Price indicators, and all the other features of the market-mechanism, would most likely be preserved.
Original post by Lord Hysteria
I have been having a lot of discussion lately on private property in the Libertarian forum, and outside, with geolibertarians. I have also been reading some strange posts by people whose views on rights seem murky. Thus, I have decided to make a thread detailing rights (in the descriptive sense) and private property. All the while debunking collectivist myths.
I really don't see what purpose a "descriptive" interpretation of rights serves. The only conceivable interpretation is a one in which what people CAN do is what they have a RIGHT to do. But then, even that seems to be a normative statement. "Rights" form a part of normative discourse and it is a fundamental part of normative language. It makes no sense to think of it as a descriptive word. If a lion eats a gazelle, we can say that it eats a gazelle, that it is able to eat a gazelle, and so forth. To say that it has a right to eat it because it is able to eat it is either (a) a normative statement, not a descriptive one, or (b) just a tautology where the use of "right" serves very little purpose at all.
Land as Property
To an extent there is a misperception in the way we think of 'land'. There is no such thing as 'land'. Land is a block of three-dimensional space (which there is plenty around us). Private property is the material which we see around us – from trees, swimming pools, pebbles and boulders. What was once a leisure centre is now a cinema, and what was once a tree plantation is now a farm.
To an extent there is a misperception in the way we think of 'land'. There is no such thing as 'land'. Land is a block of three-dimensional space (which there is plenty around us). Private property is the material which we see around us – from trees, swimming pools, pebbles and boulders. What was once a leisure centre is now a cinema, and what was once a tree plantation is now a farm.
This seems confused and imprecise. You assert that there is no such thing as land... but then go onto describe what land is. Land is indeed three-dimensional, it is indeed space, it is indeed usually seen as the earth on which we walk, it has the resources from which much else is made, and so forth. It can also be moulded (using one's labour) to meet a diverse range of needs in order to gain a profit (e.g. cinemas, farms and so forth).
What makes the land underneath my feet different to the laptop I am using? It so happens that gravitational forces have created a circular planet and it's because of gravity that we are bound to it. But does that circular planet have anything different to my laptop? No, of course not.
The resources for making the laptop came from the ground, most likely. The labour was somebody else's input (or your input in order to earn enough money to purchase the laptop). I don't see where you're going with this distinction. A laptop IS land, but it's land and labour (or, to be truthful, in economics it'd be seen as the product of "land + labour + capital + enterprise").
One cannot own land, as such – any more than one can own 'space'. We happen to talk about 'land' because it is a convenient unit of resources. So a person doesn't own land - but the resources. So, you own a flat, farm, swimming pool or whatever ...
It is possible to own space, incidentally - if you can exclusively control it. Traditionally, people haven't been allowed to own space (except in a minority of cases), or usually the State has declared control over airspace. But all you seem to have done here is more specifically label "land" to be a specific resource which, as far as I can see, has no detrimental effect on geolibertarian theory, which claims that you can own your labour, but your use of land or resources (on which you labour) requires, perhaps, compensation through a land tax (at least under one form of geolibertarianism).
Myth 1: Earth was Left in Common to Mankind
Libertarians (and their geolibertarian neighbours) today derive their understanding of what "makes" private property from the works of John Locke. John Locke was struggling to solve the earlier Grotius-Pufendorf problem of how property could be justified, if God gave Earth to mankind in common. Grotius and Pufendorf postulated that consent justified private property. However, John Locke advanced that appropriation of those goods is justified by labouring on them. The Earth belongs to all, John Locke asserts (by appealing to natural law which he argues is knowable by reason).
Underlining all these notions is a communist assertion that people have "rights" by simply existing – and not through human action (a point I will return to later).
Libertarians (and their geolibertarian neighbours) today derive their understanding of what "makes" private property from the works of John Locke. John Locke was struggling to solve the earlier Grotius-Pufendorf problem of how property could be justified, if God gave Earth to mankind in common. Grotius and Pufendorf postulated that consent justified private property. However, John Locke advanced that appropriation of those goods is justified by labouring on them. The Earth belongs to all, John Locke asserts (by appealing to natural law which he argues is knowable by reason).
Underlining all these notions is a communist assertion that people have "rights" by simply existing – and not through human action (a point I will return to later).
I think it betrays an egregious misreading of the history of political philosophy to call that claim a "communist assertion". Geolibertarians would most likely happily accept that people have rights just for existing rather than having earnt their rights. The right to free speech, the right not to be murdered, the right not to be raped, and so forth, are not earnt through human action, and I think it's rather odd to shoehorn this in with communism, especially since these sorts of rights were discussed long before the birth of Karl Marx.
It is not problematic for a geolibertarian to assert that people intrinsically ought to have rights (in their view), and yet they have no inherent right to own property unless they compensate people when they use labour upon scarce resources.
People have these entitlements to scarce goods out-of-nothing other than existing! Geolibertarians proudly claim that people have "equal rights of access". But this presupposes that all people already have a positive claim to everything. You can only "access" that which you own. It is a necessary condition of ownership. This creates a positive obligation on every human on the planet to ensure they are not breaching the entitlements of others.
Why is this bizarre? It's not unusual for people to claim that people have rights qua existing beings, or qua sentient beings. E.G. Foetuses have a right to life, qua sentient beings. Or I have a right to self-ownership, qua sentient beings. To say that people have rights to scarce goods, qua sentient being with needs, is not a straightforwardly absurd normative claim unless you launch an argument against it - but I don't see one here. Under any form of libertarianism there is a positive obligation put upon every human to respect the law and respect people's rights (and the positive enforcement of keeping property laws). I don't see what problem there is with that.
Furthermore, when geolibertarians talk of "common ownership", they don't mean to say that everyone has exclusive control over resources (which would entail a contradiction), but rather that because of land's special status as "scarce" and "unworked for" (etc.) then it falls into the category of being a morally-arbitrary (or undeserved) as distinct from the products that one creates with one's labour (which are intuitively said to be more deserved). As such, whilst one can own the fruits of one's labour, they accept that the distribution of land is a more complex issue, and therefore (this is where geolibertarians differ), others may be entitled to compensation when people use land (e.g. through a land tax). None of this requires your definition of ownership.
A "collective" is made up of individual people (it can be six people on the planet or even six-billion people). The collective entitlements are derived from the rights of its individual members. Thus, if one man cannot claim land – nor can the collective. If it is the case that man cannot claim ownership of land, then nor can any collection of any number of individuals.
It's a decent theory of rights, but not everyone is obliged to accept that rights have to be transitive in this way (i.e. just because nobody in the collective has a right, it does not necessarily follow that the collective, as a whole, cannot have a right - this is particularly the case when the collective unit [let's say, tax-collectors] are better organised to non-intrusively collect putative entitlements rather than individuals seizing them for themselves).
The very definition of "ownership" is exclusive control over the use of a scarce good. The concepts of "ownership" and "common" are incompatible. A person does not have the 'right' to free speech any more than the 'right' to access sidewalks. I have come across the spurious so-called "distinction" between common and collective ownership. The difference hinges on the common ownership being "equal rights" whereas a collective ownership may vary in proportion. But the fundamental point is that in each case everyone has a prior entitlement to that resource.
Quite clearly when people talk of 'collective ownership' they don't speak of ownership as if it were a synonym for exclusive control over a scarce good. You are right there, but it doesn't follow that people don't have rights to free speech or access sidewalks (both of which have very little to do with having exclusive ownership over a scarce resource). I see no line of argument here. I also don't see the problem with people have a prior entitlement to that resource.
One can't help but noticed that geolibertarians (or commonists) also invoke the "… when there was only one man on earth …" state of nature to explain that "we would have a right to the use of the whole earth." Anyone, with even the vaguest concept of evolution, should dismiss this nonsense. But even if you are the only man on Earth, you don't have any more entitlement to resources – than sheep or horses. You're free to do as you please. But you have no entitlements. Indeed, planet Earth has been in existence for billions-of-years. What about all the animals and our primate ancestors? Do they not have an equal 'entitlement' to resources? Should chimpanzees, therefore, be locked-up in zoos? When did homo sapiens decide that they have a unique positive entitlement to everything on the planet. Notice the sophistry when the say that the first human (Adam from the bible, of course) would have been able to go anywhere and do anything. But this is obviously not true. He couldn't, for instance, march into a lion's den to snatch a cub – not for long. With a big gasp, geolibertarians should be asserting that the lions are preventing Adam's "right" to access! Further, they would say, shouldn't the lions compensate Adam's 'right'? Perhaps the pride ought to give Adam one of their cubs as payment. But, for some strange reason, this hysteria is directed at homo sapiens and their activity. Geolibertarianism suffers from a grand confusion of positive entitlements (or 'right') to land and the freedom to act. (Not forgetting the notion that Earth was given to mankind)
1. I don't see how this is an argument against geolibertarianism. It instead seems to be an argument in favour of animal rights. Libertarianism is indeterminate in its stance on animal rights. Many geolibertarians would look in bemusement at your post here and bite the bullet, saying, "well, yeah, I DO believe that it's wrong to lock up animals in zoos", or "well, yeah, I DO believe that we ought not eat animals [read: animals ought to have special rights protecting them]".
2. I think you confuse throw-away thought-experiments with actual reality, because I very much doubt that anybody who says "if there was only one man on the earth ..." really believes that there ever was one man on the earth - they're just illustrating a point.
3. The point about lions snatching Adam's right to roam doesn't seem purposeful. What is being demonstrated here? That non-sentient beings can't respect rights? I think you should think about the "moral agent" and "moral patient" distinction. Lions may have rights as moral patients (much like, arguably, foetuses or babies) but not as moral agents (because they can't think). Many non-sentient pain-feeling organisms fall into the category of moral patients (e.g. the disabled). Sure, a lion might kill somebody, and it would be unlawful for a human to do so because I human is a moral agent who has a duty to respect other people's right to live (or self-ownership, or whatever). Of course, the lion would probably also be killed/punished if it was found to be breaching other people's rights to life.
Further, the problem with so-called "collective rights" only begins by asking who determined what they are? Who proposed these rights? And who is bound by them? Geolibertarianism assumes land is owned in common as the beginning point. How did such ownership exist? It is entirely question-begging with no real answers. Hence, one really does need a God to support this foundationless sculpture.
"The author of the value-system" would be a suitable answer to these questions. When I declare murder to be wrong, it is me who claims what people's rights ought to be (perhaps after consulting social contract theory, or something else). I don't see it as question-begging to do so because I'm not making an argument that requires the conclusion as a premise - it's merely asserting a value-system composed of rights. Everybody necessarily communicates a value-system when they talk about what rights people ought or ought not to have when engaging in political philosophy. You also don't need a God in order to do so - I think that's a pretty silly claim - you're just overreaching yourself there.
So far it seems that you're attacking deontic-geolibertarianism, rather than geolibertarianism as a consequentialist political philosophy.
This is my favourite part of the geolibertarian Lockean mantra, because it doesn't take a lot to shoot-down.
Geolibertarians assert that since man did not create land (i.e. it is not the result of human labour), man is not entitled to own land. But there are no resources on the planet that have been created by humans. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter (or its energy equivalent) can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Fundamentally, nobody "creates" anything. Land, like everything else, is a "product of labor" to the extent that it is initially transformed. According to the Lockean proviso, man is no more entitled to a house than a mountain. He happens to have taken some wood of the floor, and re-arranged it. But the wood is not the product of his labour. Thus, the "man didn't create land" is an utter strawman.
Most geolibertarians would accept that all raw materials going into private property were not created from their labour. Nobody creates anything, as you rightly assert, but this is inconsequential - how does it penetrate the geolibertarian's claim that people use labour upon raw materials (and thus that private property is a product of some form of human labour)? I don't see where the strawman is...
We must depart from this Lockean notion and refine the arguments about rights and property. Labour does not establish private ownership. Scarcity establishes private ownership. According to geolibertarians and Lockeans, private property derives from applying (or mixing) labour with resources. But this is not true. Private property is a result of a natural phenomenon – scarcity. Humans act as a means to an end. Those means involve scarce goods, and since they are scarce, they must become private owned (i.e. exclusive). Two people cannot consume the same apple.
Scarcity does cause private property, but this makes no statement about entitlement. Scarcity (though not just scarcity, it also requires humans) makes it such that property must exist and be privately controlled in some form. The geolibertarian asserts that XYZ's labour makes property XYZ's property. Therefore it is an entitlement theory, identifying who ought to own what property (for without an entitlement theory, one just has anarchy, or 'might is right', and so forth). Therefore you are addressing a different question to the one that a geolibertarian seeks to answer.
No geolibertarian is asserting that private property is created as a result of labour. More accurately, they are saying that private property entitlement is created as a result of one's labour.
A new argument, a by-product of the previous one, states that man must not be entitled to the value of that which he did not create. But the value of something arises out of its demand – which is determined subjectively. Moreover, how on Earth (excuse the pun!) does someone separate the "original" value from the value added by human labour? It's time we moved on from the Labour theory of value!
This, at least, is a decent criticism of geolibertarianism which is discussed within geolibertarian circles. There are various responses, e.g. the auctioning of land (with tax rates). Though I must say that I'm rather sceptical over the Austrian claim that markets determine the value of all things.
There is another argument that needs to be addressed here. Private property is sometimes involves the production of security (risk-taking) and information. In other words, land has to be discovered. Christopher Columbus was sent by the King of Spain to find new lands. This was a carefully planned & operated and financially-backed venture that wasn't even sure to produce any results! Shouldn't the King of Spain be entitled to claim the Americas as being under his dominion? If not, there are no incentives to discover new resources.
Why would there be no incentive if he's entitled to profit from any private property which he gains using his own labour?
This particular argument is a consequentialist attack on geolibertarianism, and the obvious counter is "where is the King's incentive to use his newly-found resources efficiently if he's not taxed for using the land?"
Lastly, how can individuals claim that they have ownership over themselves if they didn't create themselves? Since the geolibertarian position is that one can only claim private property over that which one labours. By that account, man doesn't 'own' himself. I hardly think any libertarian would assert we're not entitled to our own bodies, since we didn't create them.
One continuously labours to meet one's own needs, so in that sense we own ourselves as private property because we labour on ourselves (remember, geolibertarians don't talk about people owning property just because they "create" it, but rather because they labour on it). But anyway, I think is wrong - there's nothing logically barring a geolibertarian from saying that people have rights to self-ownership just because it's a fundamental moral axiom that they hold dear, whilst maintaining that ownership of other property should be based upon desert (namely, one's own contribution of labour upon the resource). I think they're mistaken in their views, but there's not much in what you've said that I'd identify as a good criticism of geolibertarianism.
Myth 3: Private Ownership is Harmful
In many ways, John Locke paved the way to the Marxist trap that ownership is harmful (and thus, bad). But appropriation and private property is NOT a zero-sum-game.
When we imagine first appropriation, we imagine a race in which first-come-first-serve are the lucky ones. The unpalatable reality is that life was very harsh for those first appropriators. Consider the first settlers to England. If given a choice, would you rather live in primitive bronze-age England or today? The most we have to wake-up to in the night is a wet dream. They didn't have long-distance travel done in the matter of hours, or a microwave to cook food, or a Sainsbury's to do one's shopping. Original appropriation benefits latecomers infinitely more than the appropriators. The poorest in today's society enjoy life-expectancy several decades above the original appropriators. This is a fact. The state of the commons before appropriation is a negative-sum-game. It is only when private property comes into fruition that economic standards improve and human existence is extended to more favourable circumstances.
People tend to place the highest value on things that they own. They have an individual responsibility to maintain and increase its value. Equally, they have the least incentive to maintain resources they can get for nothing. Why else was the bison almost exterminated, whereas cattle are never in danger of extinction?
The geolibertarian-Lockean position that one is free to act as long as one doesn't infringe on another's right is the source of the problem. My taking X, means that someone else cannot. That is a simple fact of scarcity, which I deal with above and below.
In many ways, John Locke paved the way to the Marxist trap that ownership is harmful (and thus, bad). But appropriation and private property is NOT a zero-sum-game.
When we imagine first appropriation, we imagine a race in which first-come-first-serve are the lucky ones. The unpalatable reality is that life was very harsh for those first appropriators. Consider the first settlers to England. If given a choice, would you rather live in primitive bronze-age England or today? The most we have to wake-up to in the night is a wet dream. They didn't have long-distance travel done in the matter of hours, or a microwave to cook food, or a Sainsbury's to do one's shopping. Original appropriation benefits latecomers infinitely more than the appropriators. The poorest in today's society enjoy life-expectancy several decades above the original appropriators. This is a fact. The state of the commons before appropriation is a negative-sum-game. It is only when private property comes into fruition that economic standards improve and human existence is extended to more favourable circumstances.
People tend to place the highest value on things that they own. They have an individual responsibility to maintain and increase its value. Equally, they have the least incentive to maintain resources they can get for nothing. Why else was the bison almost exterminated, whereas cattle are never in danger of extinction?
The geolibertarian-Lockean position that one is free to act as long as one doesn't infringe on another's right is the source of the problem. My taking X, means that someone else cannot. That is a simple fact of scarcity, which I deal with above and below.
A geolibertarian would accept that the use of private property is not a zero-sum game, but it doesn't follow that it is not harmful, and indeed, any system that can potentially exclude people from vital resources does have the potential to be harmful, which is where this concern over property entitlement comes in. A geolibertarian would accept that private property improves people's lives, and indeed that our ancestors had tougher lives. They also recognise the problem of the tragedy of the commons. They recognise that scarcity entails exclusivity (and, as you don't mention it, that the more one uses of land, the more one uses scarce resources, and thus the more you exclude - which is potentially harmful). None of this really tackles geolibertarianism, which would happily embrace those points you mention.
Myth 4: Freedom is Dependent on Land
It is said that freedom is dependent on the availability of land! This is what someone said on TSR:[INDENT][INDENT]This stops the choice of 'work or die', for many, which isn't really freedom at all.[/INDENT][/INDENT]I don't own land. Lots of people I know don't own land. What is wrong with working and saving (other than the fact I am a capitalist)? Human labour is necessary for survival – not land. Wealth is created by the productive efforts of man in the division of labour – simply owning goods is no guarantee to anything.
Even if one is designated a certain space, you can't live long without trade or working the land. By all accounts, therefore, one still isn't free since one has to work.
Therefore, we need to revise what freedom really means. People act as a means to an end. There is always something that would make us more satisfactory. Freedom is not about the limitations of choice people must make (which is qualm against the nature of reality) – but being free from coercion to make one's own choices. The real non-freedom is when someone denies another person the option to work, in the example above.
It is said that freedom is dependent on the availability of land! This is what someone said on TSR:[INDENT][INDENT]This stops the choice of 'work or die', for many, which isn't really freedom at all.[/INDENT][/INDENT]I don't own land. Lots of people I know don't own land. What is wrong with working and saving (other than the fact I am a capitalist)? Human labour is necessary for survival – not land. Wealth is created by the productive efforts of man in the division of labour – simply owning goods is no guarantee to anything.
Even if one is designated a certain space, you can't live long without trade or working the land. By all accounts, therefore, one still isn't free since one has to work.
Therefore, we need to revise what freedom really means. People act as a means to an end. There is always something that would make us more satisfactory. Freedom is not about the limitations of choice people must make (which is qualm against the nature of reality) – but being free from coercion to make one's own choices. The real non-freedom is when someone denies another person the option to work, in the example above.
It's worth pointing out that geolibertarianism doesn't prevent people from owning land, but instead seeks to prevent other people from monopolising the land on which others (according to your view of freedom) gain their freedom (e.g. to work). All labour must be directed towards land or resources (even in service industries - so it's not an insignificant concern - we need entitlements to space, resources and land in order to survive). So this argument can be used in the geolibertarian's favour.
I also don't agree that your version of freedom is the only desirable form of freedom. Most people don't complain about the fact that choices are limited (which, as you say, is a fact of reality), but rather they complain so that people can change what their choices are (e.g. so that the choice isn't just between starving one's child or starving oneself). People act as a means to an end, but this makes no statement about the unequally distributed and diverse means that are available to different people to reach their desired and various ends. "Coercion" is also a much disputed word, but I shan't digress into that discussion.
Myth 5: A Difference Between the State and the Community
If it is true that humans need land to survive (which it is not), then surely – to geolibertarians – taxing land is tantamount to taxing existence. There are two ways to tax. You either tax humans for action, or you tax humans for the resources by which they act. It is perceived that there is a difference between the two. Resources are scarce, and man needs resources to act. Either way, man is being taxed for acting. It is not his fault that he lives with scarcity. But, geolibertarians claim that private property is unjust and that man must pay to rectify the unjustness. This is the basis of the LVT (and, thus, it is dealt with above).
If it is true that humans need land to survive (which it is not), then surely – to geolibertarians – taxing land is tantamount to taxing existence. There are two ways to tax. You either tax humans for action, or you tax humans for the resources by which they act. It is perceived that there is a difference between the two. Resources are scarce, and man needs resources to act. Either way, man is being taxed for acting. It is not his fault that he lives with scarcity. But, geolibertarians claim that private property is unjust and that man must pay to rectify the unjustness. This is the basis of the LVT (and, thus, it is dealt with above).
Humans DO need land (which includes resources) in order to survive. You need entitlements over certain resources in order to feed yourself, for instance. To tax people for using land is akin to taxing a good that is required in order to exist (not existence, per se), but it is to ensure that everybody can exist in a world where resources are scarce. It is not anybody's fault that land is scarce (it is not a punitive tax, so I don't see why you make appeals to 'fault' or 'culpability'...).
Some choose to call it a rent or tax. The question becomes how does one pay it? How does the assessment, calculation, collection and distribution take place without an institution with the monopoly on the use of force that cannot be retaliated against? What happens if I decide I don't want to pay this tax, and that may land is indeed justly acquired. You need such an institution that has the monopoly on the use force without being retaliated against. This seems so obvious, I don't think I need to spend much time explaining any further.
Arguably not inherently objectionable.
But how is the LVT 'calculated'? The fact that the quasi-government would have to be involved in this process makes that government inherently political. And the nature of government (or the seductiveness of the monopoly on force) is such that it can only expand. But the LVT can only be calculated by either: (1) an arbitrary figure and/or (2) whenever the lease on a given land is up, the new one is auctioned off to the highest bidder with government approval.
Precisely - you've suggested two solutions yourself.
The reality is that the people in the market determine the value of a given stretch of land. Land is still scarce as it was 100 years ago. And if the market-place is the most efficient way to ensure an optimal supply of a scarce good (elastic or inelastic), then it holds that land – on the free-market – would tend to an optimal supply too.
The last solution (auctioning) makes use of a market mechanism.
Purchasing land does not reduce the supply of land. If land starts to actually become really scarce, economic incentives would induce resources to be spent on building more land — either by building skyscrapper, or digging deeper into the earth — or to discover land on different planets (if things got really serious!).
Price indicators, and all the other features of the market-mechanism, would most likely be preserved.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Melancholy
3. The point about lions snatching Adam's right to roam doesn't seem purposeful. What is being demonstrated here? That non-sentient beings can't respect rights? I think you should think about the "moral agent" and "moral patient" distinction. Lions may have rights as moral patients (much like, arguably, foetuses or babies) but not as moral agents (because they can't think). Many non-sentient pain-feeling organisms fall into the category of moral patients (e.g. the disabled). Sure, a lion might kill somebody, and it would be unlawful for a human to do so because I human is a moral agent who has a duty to respect other people's right to live (or self-ownership, or whatever). Of course, the lion would probably also be killed/punished if it was found to be breaching other people's rights to life.
Off-topic but thanks for this, I've been mulling over a similar sort of idea and this has helped crystallise it - I mean the 'moral agent' and 'moral patient' distinction.
Original post by Lord Hysteria
I'm not entirely sure I like that definition of 'land'. Surely a key characteristic of land is the natural resources available to us that exist independently of any human act of labour? What of the trees that exist for paper or the rivers that exist for fishing? Does land only really exist as a narrowly defined three-dimensional characteristic with no specific or individual characteristics?
Imagine a grape vineyard; Smith 'homesteads' the land through an act of labour. While to realise the full potential of the natural resources he must pick the grapes - an act of labour - the benefits of the land exist through no act of his own. Smith could have just as easily stumbled across a barren empty field with little or no value. Indeed, perhaps a neighbouring community has come across this misfortune and Smith, will have (rightly) excluded the community from use of the vineyard. Perhaps, then, the actor ought not to be able to claim x, x being the value of the land independent of any act of labour, but should be able to claim y, y being the improvement he has made upon the land. He can claim ownership and exclusive control of any land he has homesteaded but what absolute 'right' does he possess that any taxation of x as recompensation for the excluded community may be considered an 'unethical' violation?
Edit - I am generally interested in the discussion and what your thoughts may be in regards to the isssues of ownership as highlighted above. Also how do you suppose property rights are justly claimed? I often get a 'might makes right' sentiment when reading your posts, ergo it would be handy for you to elaborate upon your conceptions of property rights. Nice to see you again, by the way.
(edited 12 years ago)
Melancholy
...
I am not sure why you've responded to me at all. You've spent 95% of the time above attacking endless juvenile strawmen and posting-for-the-sake-of-posting. I have made it endlessly clear what I meant by rights, by linking people to it above in more-detail. But you're spent the time ignoring it, and saying "well, erm, I can only imagine the idea of rights being normative .. so, erm, I'm going to ignore everything you've said, and re-explain geolibertarianism" ... I'm going to have to find enough f*ing patience to explain everything. I might therefore respond over the weekend, I'm too annoyed now.
Original post by D.R.E
Off-topic but thanks for this, I've been mulling over a similar sort of idea and this has helped crystallise it - I mean the 'moral agent' and 'moral patient' distinction.
No, it is not. It is stupid. Animals acquire scarce goods through action. Homo sapiens = animals.
I don't care for normative animal rights. It's all wonderful arbitrary nonsense ... Animals and humans only crucially differ thanks to our brains (and lower vocal cords) ... who is to say that some animals have no conception of ethics ... why should that be the basis of normative rights ...
Original post by Lord Hysteria
I am not sure why you've responded to me at all. You've spent 95% of the time above attacking endless juvenile strawmen and posting-for-the-sake-of-posting. I have made it endlessly clear what I meant by rights, by linking people to it above in more-detail. But you're spent the time ignoring it, and saying "well, erm, I can only imagine the idea of rights being normative .. so, erm, I'm going to ignore everything you've said, and re-explain geolibertarianism" ... I'm going to have to find enough f*ing patience to explain everything. I might therefore respond over the weekend, I'm too annoyed now.
I didn't ignore everything you said - I referred specifically to your points, if you had other clarifications to include then you should have included them in your post. It literally makes no sense to talk about non-normative 'rights' from what you've posted so far.
No, it is not. It is stupid. Animals acquire scarce goods through action. Homo sapiens = animals.
I don't care for normative animal rights. It's all wonderful arbitrary nonsense ... Animals and humans only crucially differ thanks to our brains (and lower vocal cords) ... who is to say that some animals have no conception of ethics ... why should that be the basis of normative rights ...
I don't care for normative animal rights. It's all wonderful arbitrary nonsense ... Animals and humans only crucially differ thanks to our brains (and lower vocal cords) ... who is to say that some animals have no conception of ethics ... why should that be the basis of normative rights ...
An animal is instinctual and manifestly does not deliberate over the same moral concerns that humans demonstrably have in the past. Humans share a great deal of moral intuitions (e.g. that it is immoral to murder an innocent human). We have the capacity in an open forum to discuss and debate these issues out-loud. The very fact that humans have been able to make use of higher science is evidence that humans do a lot of reflective thinking that other animals simply have not demonstrated to the same degree, and as such we put greater burdens upon ourselves (since the more brain-power an agent has, the more that agent can rationally regulate his/her actions). So I wouldn't feel uncomfortable making the human/other-animal distinction, and I doubt many others would. Any human who declares that murder, rape and the infliction of pain is wrong, or who engages in political philosophy, or any other normative philosophy, is making ought statements that an animal has never seemingly been able to do. But sure, if other animals could articulate these values and join the discussion, then I'd welcome them. Yet the distinction clearly does exist, since no other animal has yet to articulate a clearly-defined value system or conclusively demonstrate that he/she is the bearer of the same rational faculties that humans enjoy.
Nobody denies that humans are animals and nobody denies that animals can acquire scarce goods though action, but these points do not seem to defeat my distinction. The distinction between moral agents and moral patients is a credible one - indeed, it makes no sense to think of a non-sentient organism as behaving morally if you believe that moral decisions require ethical judgement (and sentience in order to think about that judgement). So there certainly does exist a class of organisms that we say are moral agents (the distinction between who can and can't make moral decisions is a legitimate one that exists).
If you believe that we should look out for people who have the capacity to feel pain, yet are unthinking or disabled people (say, people who lack the means to act in order to acquire resources), then the term 'moral patients' best describes this class of organisms. Luckily for me, there is a high degree of intersubjective agreement that animals ought not be tortured (i.e. they ought to have a right not to be tortured, protected by force). I suspect that this is because most people value an ethical system which requires them to reflect upon whether they'd enjoy the action that they're inflicting upon others. Whether or not animals are allowed to be tortured, one set of normative values must compete and win over the other - no stance is value-neutral.
I dislike how any inclusion of values - say, that inflicting pain upon weaker humans - can be dismissed as arbitrary, and that therefore it is deemed as invaluable in discussions on political philosophy. And indeed, it's hypocritical, since every single 'ought' statement involves a value-judgement, and every single discussion about 'rights' or coherent/consistent political philosophies necessarily entails an 'ought' conclusion - from Mises to Rawls to Hayek to Burke to Lord Hysteria to whomever else. Some thinkers are more willing to accept this than others.
So, in brief, if you conclude that my distinction is stupid because:
(a) humans acquire scarce goods through action
(b) humans are animals
... then I question how the conclusion follows from the premises.
(c) it is an arbitrary distinction
... then I'd challenge this by saying that it manifestly exists as a distinction (those that have the capacity to think rationally and make moral judgements and those that can't), AND even contend that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, since arbitrary distinctions based on intuitive moral values necessarily exist for anybody who utters a conclusive statement on political philosophy (which is, after all, mostly a branch of normative philosophy).
(d) the distinction between humans and other animals is untenable
... then I'd say that 'humans' is short-hand for any organism that can clearly define and articulate his value system in a rational form - something which manifestly only occurs with most humans (the architects who have made most use of science through a reflective thinking that I doubt most other animals consciously have, i.e. the ability to reach complex goals by choosing the appropriate means through which to acquire their ends). Further, since it is only humans who can understand, think and act upon our complex instructions, then necessarily only humans can be moral agents. Therefore, it's a plausible distinction to make.
(edited 12 years ago)
Me
I am generally interested in the discussion and what your thoughts may be in regards to the isssues of ownership as highlighted above. Also how do you suppose property rights are justly claimed?
Original post by D.R.E
...
I pose the above question (directed at LH) to you also. Also, I am interested in your thoughts on the following scenario:
'distributing property rights is always problematic and, as you said earlier in the thread, it is most important to allocate them justly. In the absence of the state, many 'voluntaryists' suggest that custom law would prevail in a community defining property rights. This is beneficial since custom law emerges voluntarily through contractual deals (always mutually beneficial, axiomatically, always productive, axiomatically). This is opposed to state mandated law defining property rights which could be defined for peverse interests (those of state officials) and so forth.'
Original post by AnarchistNutter
I pose the above question (directed at LH) to you also. Also, I am interested in your thoughts on the following scenario:
'distributing property rights is always problematic and, as you said earlier in the thread, it is most important to allocate them justly. In the absence of the state, many 'voluntaryists' suggest that custom law would prevail in a community defining property rights. This is beneficial since custom law emerges voluntarily through contractual deals (always mutually beneficial, axiomatically, always productive, axiomatically). This is opposed to state mandated law defining property rights which could be defined for peverse interests (those of state officials) and so forth.'
'distributing property rights is always problematic and, as you said earlier in the thread, it is most important to allocate them justly. In the absence of the state, many 'voluntaryists' suggest that custom law would prevail in a community defining property rights. This is beneficial since custom law emerges voluntarily through contractual deals (always mutually beneficial, axiomatically, always productive, axiomatically). This is opposed to state mandated law defining property rights which could be defined for peverse interests (those of state officials) and so forth.'
About property rights: a thing can only truly be 'yours' if you produce it, pay for it or ownership is transferred to you as a gift. As I think I've said in this thread, property rights a social concept which do not exist in a vacuum.
On the second point, you have to ask yourself, which came first, the law or the state; and that will answer you question.
Original post by D.R.E
On the second point, you have to ask yourself, which came first, the law or the state; and that will answer you question.
Presumably you believe the state - and that the law could never nave evolved without it. Ok, but how are laws found by the state? On what premise are those laws 'correct'? Would it not be beneficial to have competitors who may maximise utility in providing more effective laws? etc.
Original post by AnarchistNutter
Presumably you believe the state - and that the law could never nave evolved without it. Ok, but how are laws found by the state? On what premise are those laws 'correct'? Would it not be beneficial to have competitors who may maximise utility in providing more effective laws? etc.
Well, no actually, I believe that the law did; but it wasn't the 'the law', it was just custom. But customary law is pretty inefficient, in my opinion, and state law has superseded it as society has grown beyond one's village or clan. Having competing legal systems without borders would quite simply not work, England became a proper country when the Normans invaded and made the Common Law the supreme law, before that, you just had a bunch minor kingdoms fighting each other no end.
Original post by D.R.E
Well, no actually, I believe that the law did; but it wasn't the 'the law', it was just custom. But customary law is pretty inefficient, in my opinion, and state law has superseded it as society has grown beyond one's village or clan. Having competing legal systems without borders would quite simply not work, England became a proper country when the Normans invaded and made the Common Law the supreme law,
To points in bold, why? And why are State mandated laws 'better'? Not trying to be annoying btw, just genuinely intrigued.
before that, you just had a bunch minor kingdoms fighting each other no end.
This is a point but in a globalised and integrated economy people have the ability to organise wide ranging insurance schemes backed by modern policing techniques and military arms, with private investigation into crimes backed by sophisticated forensic science and a cry for help heard by almost everyone through the media, if you see what I mean. There is no reason to believe customary law would be as inefficient anymore as it would have been in an isolated tribal community/miniature state at war with other tribes.
Original post by AnarchistNutter
To points in bold, why? And why are State mandated laws 'better'? Not trying to be annoying btw, just genuinely intrigued.
It's just a simple case of compliance and enforcement, and also that wooly notion of 'justice'. The thing about these sort of communal laws is that generally, they are quite flexible, and usually involved punishment in kind, which they viewed as justice. You steal a cow, you return the cow, and lose your finger. You rape a girl, you pay compensation to the father etc etc. Now this works fine in a situation where you have a small village, but when you have a series of intertwining legal systems, any contravention and lack of compliance can likely trigger a war.
Moreover, they changed too quickly and while their jurisprudence was highly developed, it was at the end of the day, subject to the whims of whomever was at the top, would get abused. States have an incentive to be stable and not be arbitrary in their rule. The fact that most state legal systems are codified to varying degrees also increases this stability. Customary law is, well, custom.
This is a point but in a globalised and integrated economy people have the ability to organise wide ranging insurance schemes backed by modern policing techniques and military arms, with private investigation into crimes backed by sophisticated forensic science and a cry for help heard by almost everyone through the media, if you see what I mean. There is no reason to believe customary law would be as inefficient anymore as it would have been in an isolated tribal community/miniature state at war with other tribes.
I don't disagree with this as such, but I just think it's impractical. For the most part, state legal systems develop towards allowing people greater freedom and have many positive externalities for business. Imagine wanting to run a railway, and having to go through like 3 or 4 people, buying up their properties, encountering all sorts of random legal systems, the legal expenses would be astronomical. Not to mention, it just wouldn't work, unless a community came together and picked a certain legal provider they liked to provide services for them... which would be no different to now anyway.
Original post by D.R.E
It's just a simple case of compliance and enforcement, and also that wooly notion of 'justice'. The thing about these sort of communal laws is that generally, they are quite flexible, and usually involved punishment in kind, which they viewed as justice. You steal a cow, you return the cow, and lose your finger. You rape a girl, you pay compensation to the father etc etc. Now this works fine in a situation where you have a small village, but when you have a series of intertwining legal systems, any contravention and lack of compliance can likely trigger a war.
Agree with the above - the exact kind of problem created by fleeting polycentric ethical codes in the absence of common law.
I don't disagree with this as such, but I just think it's impractical. For the most part, state legal systems develop towards allowing people greater freedom and have many positive externalities for business. Imagine wanting to run a railway, and having to go through like 3 or 4 people, buying up their properties, encountering all sorts of random legal systems, the legal expenses would be astronomical. Not to mention, it just wouldn't work, unless a community came together and picked a certain legal provider they liked to provide services for them... which would be no different to now anyway.
Again, agree but my argument is not really to defend custom law. I think we can both agree that no objective morality truly exists in so far as it is a social construct/created by humans to meet their ends and purposes. My question to you would be how are laws found by the State - i.e. why is a politician's or the judge from a Statist law court's ruling anything more than his own arbitrary whims? Or the whims of a majority in a democracy - wherein people will be in the majority for certain laws but have their voices undermined for other laws? etc., etc. This is where the philosophy behind legal theory really comes in to play - how is the truth acquired and by whom?
Nonetheless, while I agree that those are probably the most inefficient forms of law (polycentric law) I will play devil's advocate, in response to your points
*its likely to be in the commercial interests of all property owners to sign up to objective insurance policies used by most other commercial property owners that maximise utility for the customer where public use is concerned to maximise market value and revenues, etc.
*the train person would probably want to buy up his own land if he is to build a track there...or if its unused there won't be very many random legal systems and he can 'homestead' the land (by building his own track). In this case there's little reason to believe there would be conflict with other legal systems anyway since he's just using his own land.
*in case of doubt where there's no third party insurance policy agreed on between a specific dispute between two parties, local customs will most likely turn to mainstream court rulings and so forth.
*geographic territorialisation of courts is theoretically plausible though in this instance (a) small geographic relocation is evidently easier than relocation between states (ergo more competition in provision of law as a consumer's good) and (b) other miniature courts not excluded from passing judgements - whether or not those judgements are respected by defence agencies, banks (who dish out loans to defence agencies) and businesses (who often formulate their own codes of conducts in the weakness of a council's bylaws - see lex mercatio).
(edited 12 years ago)
It seems to me that geolibertarians are in favor of property rights too, they merely want the government, rather than individuals, to be the owner.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Legal holding deposit help
- Finding Student Accommodation in Kingston
- UK university accommodation
- PhD at Cambridge with pets
- Tenancy takeover
- HNC science
- accomodation - private agency recommendation
- Spire Healthcare: Death of NHS-funded private patient raises safety concerns
- Civil Service Fast Stream or PwC Accounting?
- Can Muslims practice criminal law
- Car insurance living in Uni accommodation
- Why are rents so high
- am i being realistic (life plans)
- Am I simply thinking too much?
- How do uni accom work?? any advice or tips?
- Liverpool uni accommodation
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Housing crisis
- Student Accommodation in Swansea
- Christmas is RUINED News Compilation thread Mk II
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
