An-cap communities are states?

Economics Political Theory
81

I guess the question then is whether a person can homestead something on behalf of another person. In leftist terms, this concerns whether labor can be “alienated”. It might also concern whether “staking a claim” (i.e. actually marking off something to indicate that it’s now yours) can be considered a kind of homesteading.

I’m assuming that labor can be alienate for the sake of argument.

So then you might ask, “In that case, didn’t the settlers homestead the land on behalf of Great Britain?” My answer is no, because the settlers didn’t turn the land over to British authorities after homesteading it.

Well, if the Disney workers didn’t turn over the land, you wouldn’t say that this invalidates the Disney owners claim. This can’t be the key difference. It’s the contract that matters, right? And I’m not sure what turning it over to them exactly entails. Clearly, neither the British monarch nor the Disney owners actually inhabited the land after it was (allegedly) homesteaded on their behalf.

And as far as I know, they were considered to be the “actual owners” of the land and had no contract with Great Britain stipulating otherwise. I certainly consider them to have been so (assuming they didn’t effectively steal it from Native Americans).

I don’t contest the fact that the contracts may have designated them “owners.” However, I don’t think they were using the same definition of ownership that Rothbardians use. They would have designated such ownership by another term such as “sovereignty.” In another thread, I quoted a Rothbard article detailing the origins of Pennsylvania. It’s very clear from what Rothbard provides that Britain never renounced absolute ownership over the land, and that William Penn, in fact, had clear intentions of making a profit off of the venture.

Colonial charters and the like were bogus IMO, because (to my knowledge) no claim had even been legitimately staked on the land in the charter.

Are you saying there was no claim at all in the contract or that the claim in the contract was illegitimate? We’ve already discussed the latter, and I think agree that an illegitimate claim over land is insufficient for invalidating a contract since this would apply to Disney.

By “post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy”, I mean your apparent argument that, because Disney Corporation came into being well after the state did, Disney Corporation necessarily came into being because of the state - that is, the state (and nothing else) caused Disney Corporation to come into being.

Sorry if I didn’t communicate it clearly, but that is not my argument. I am not saying that Disney came into being simply because it came after the state, rather I am saying that it came into being (and survives) because of the active involvement of the state. The state provides Disney defense, enforces its intellectual property rights, and ensures them limited liability, to name a few examples. Of course it’s impossible to say that Disney couldn’t have come into being without the state, but the same could be said of the US Postal Service.

Now by your reasoning above, the fact that I received federal student loans while I went to college means that I don’t legitimately own my house. Am I right? Why or why not? What if I call the police after someone breaks into my house?

If the Rothbardian position is that a specific department of the state is illegitimate because it receives some funds from stolen tax money, then yes, it seems like it would be consistent to say that you don’t legitimately own your house.

Otherwise, while it’s true that private companies often do take money from the government, they don’t all do so equally. If a company receives the lion’s share of its income by providing things that consumers want, but does receive some amount of money from the government, are all of the company’s assets necessarily illegitimately owned?

I dunno. What about the post office that receives some money from customers, the highway department that collects tolls, or public universities that collect some tuition fees?

82

Couldn’t you say that the laborers abandoned the land, though, and Disney then homesteaded it by using it as amusement parks?

83

Something more concrete, perhaps? The issue of state “property,” private courts, something?

I’m a social anarchist. I favor replacing current institutions with non-hierarchical voluntary associations, which would form voluntary confederations at various levels. There would be no absentee property nor any third party organization to enforce contracts. My ideas are pretty undeveloped at this point. I might have more to offer later. However, I don’t want to tie myself to any dogmatic prescriptions.

84

I’ve heard “non-hierarchical” a bit and I wonder what it means more specifically. Aren’t hierarchies natural and often voluntary, though? Who would bust these hierarchies if they were to form?

And “hierarchy” may not even exist without a subjective perspective. For example, the employer-employee hierarchy could be turned on its head, arguing that it is the employees who are finding ways to take money from the employer. Thus, it is just your viewpoint which creates this hierarchy.

85

Couldn’t you say that the laborers abandoned the land, though, and Disney then homesteaded it by using it as amusement parks?

I’m not sure what the Rothbardian position on abandoned land is. Maybe someone knows of an article?

(To be clear, I’m trying to analyze the contrasting scenarios from a Rothbardian perspective, though I don’t actually support such a perspective.)

86

I think you could say that hierarchy is subjective, which is why those subjected to it must ultimately be the ones to abolish it. If an employer feels like he is being subjected to hierarchy, then he is free to fight it. However, I might not share his perspective. It’s my perspective that determines my actions.

87

Really? It doesn’t seem like you are. Where did you previously specify this?

No, I wouldn’t say it invalidates Disney Corporation’s claim. My point was that any agreement - if there even was one! - between the British government and the colonial settlers was not of the same nature as the agreement between Disney Corporation and the construction workers. Is this really so hard for you to understand? Or are you indeed trolling here?

My main point is that, as far as I’m concerned, there was no (legitimate) agreement between the British government and the colonial settlers.

I don’t consider Great Britain or William Penn to have ever owned Pennsylvania. I imagine Rothbard would agree with me, although I could be wrong.

No, we certainly don’t agree. I think you know this already and therefore have ulterior (read: dishonest) motives in this debate. But giving you the benefit of the doubt for another moment, I fail to see how contracting for someone else to homestead land on your behalf (i.e. you, not he, will own and occupy the land after he homesteads it) is necessarily illegitimate.

Now don’t make the mistake of taking the above as some kind of endorsement for the Proudhonian occupancy-and-use theory of ownership. However, I will say that the anarcho-capitalist theory of ownership is closer to that than you might think. It’s just that we consider rent, debt, and employment to be legitimate uses of property by the owners thereof.

No, the same could not be said of the US Postal Service, because it enjoys a legal monopoly.

You misunderstood what I meant by “post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy” and, based on what you wrote above, you are actually making the argument that I thought and said you’re making - which is that Disney Corporation necessarily could not have come into existence and survive except through the state. By your reasoning, the same applies to you yourself. However, I fail to see how your argument necessarily holds true even for Disney Corporation.

You’re kidding me, right? At the very least, I need you to explain your reasoning in more detail.

I don’t consider “I dunno” to be an acceptable answer. Please try again.

88

FOTH, the concept of property (ownership) is the only means towards the (apparently subjectively desirable) end of non-annihilating conflict resolution, i.e. ‘agreeing to disagree’ and ‘living and letting live’, me in my own body and on my own property, you on yours. It’s the product of social evolution as societies rejecting it don’t stick around long enough to present us with any alternatives. Your fetish for hierarchy avoidance is indistinguishable from a preference for chocolate covered almonds.

89

Really? It doesn’t seem like you are. Where did you previously specify this?

Well, the question really is what Rothbard’s position is. Sometimes he assumes that labor can’t be alienated (i.e. when the state is the employer) and sometimes he assumes that it can (i.e. when “capitalists” are the employers). I am trying to resolve the issue by presenting two possible alternatives: (1) Labor can be alienated and thus the state owns nearly everything, or (2) labor can’t be alienated and thus neither the state nor capitalists own anything.

No, I wouldn’t say it invalidates Disney Corporation’s claim. My point was that any agreement - if there even was one! - between the British government and the colonial settlers was not of the same nature as the agreement between Disney Corporation and the construction workers. Is this really so hard for you to understand? Or are you indeed trolling here?

It is confusing when you say things like: “My answer is no, because the settlers didn’t turn the land over to British authorities after homesteading it.” That seems to imply that it is the act of the workers turning over Disney World after they homesteaded it that makes it Disney’s. But your above quote seems to imply that Disney World becomes Disney’s instantly as the workers homestead it (because of a predetermined contract). The latter is the point I expected you to argue in the first place.

My main point is that, as far as I’m concerned, there was no (legitimate) agreement between the British government and the colonial settlers.

No agreement or no legitimate agreement, which is it? Or are all agreements legitimate by your definition?

I don’t consider Great Britain or William Penn to have ever owned Pennsylvania. I imagine Rothbard would agree with me, although I could be wrong.

I am not saying he (or really the king) owned all of Pennsylvania (i.e. not the unhomesteaded portions), but that he owned the portions homesteaded by the settlers who “bought” the land from Penn and in the contract of “purchase” acknowledged Penn’s authority over the future homsteaded land.

Exhibit A

[After 1727] The immigrants were obliged to take the following oath upon their arrival at the port of Philadelphia:

“We subscribers, natives and late inhabitants of the Palatine upon the Rhine and places adjacent, having transported ourselves and families into the Province of Pennsylvania, a colony subject to the crown of Great Britain, in hopes and expectation of finding a retreat and a peacable settlement therein, do solemnly promise and engage that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his present majesty, King George the Second and his successors, kings of Great Britain, and will be faithful to the proprietor of this province; and that we will demean ourselves peacably to all his said majesty’s subjects, and strictly observe and conform to the laws of England and this province, to the utmost of our power and best of our understanding.”

http://www.mansker.org/history/oaths.htm

Would you not consider someone who took the above oath as giving Britain ownership over whatever he or she homesteads in the given area?

No, we certainly don’t agree. I think you know this already and therefore have ulterior (read: dishonest) motives in this debate. But giving you the benefit of the doubt for another moment, I fail to see how contracting for someone else to homestead land on your behalf (i.e. you, not he, will own and occupy the land after he homesteads it) is necessarily illegitimate.

But when did the Disney owners ever occupy Disney World? They don’t live there do they? I was saying (assuming possibility 1 above) that Disney had an illegitimate claim over the unhomesteaded land but that they had legitimate claim over it after it was homesteaded for them because their illegitimate claim didn’t invalidate the contract, which concerns the future. What part of that do you disagree with?

No, the same could not be said of the US Postal Service, because it enjoys a legal monopoly.

Ever hear of FedEx or UPS? How can they be a monopoly when they have competitors?

You misunderstood what I meant by “post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy” and, based on what you wrote above, you are actually making the argument that I thought and said you’re making - which is that Disney Corporation necessarily could not have come into existence and survive except through the state. By your reasoning, the same applies to you yourself. However, I fail to see how your argument necessarily holds true even for Disney Corporation.

How many multi-billion dollar corporations came into being without some interaction with the state? I can name a number that have come into being with state assistance. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they can come into being without it.

You’re kidding me, right? At the very least, I need you to explain your reasoning in more detail.

Before I present a syllogism, let me quote the sentence you find ridiculous: “If the Rothbardian position is that a specific department of the state is illegitimate because it receives some funds from stolen tax money, then yes, it seems like it would be consistent to say that you don’t legitimately own your house.”

Premise 1A: Any ownership of property by someone who received stolen tax money is illegitimate.

Premise 2A: The US Postal Service owns a building and received stolen tax money.

Conclusion A: The US Postal Service’s ownership of the building is illegitimate.

Premise 1B: Any ownership of property by someone who received stolen tax money is illegitimate.

Premise 2B: You own a house and received stolen tax money.

Conclusion B: Your ownership of the house is illegitimate.

I don’t consider “I dunno” to be an acceptable answer. Please try again.

Two answers for my two possibilities:

1: All of the company’s assets are not necessarily illegitimately owned. All of the state’s assets are not necessarily illegitimately owned.

2: All of the company’s assets are necessarily illegitimately owned. All of the state’s assets are necessarily illegitimately owned.

Whether we accept 1 or 2 is a matter of what definition of legitimacy we are using.

90

The state is the product of social evolution as societies rejecting it don’t stick around long enough to present us with any alternatives. Your fetish for state avoidance is indistinguishable from a preference for chocolate covered almonds.

Fixed.*

And if you want to “live and let live,” then why don’t you simply … live and let live? I don’t see why some round-a-bout method needs to be adopted.

*Of course both versions are based on faulty reasoning.

91

For the sake of consistency, did you paste ‘the state’ in place of ‘property’ or ‘hierarchy avoidance’? What’s faulty about the reasoning?

Property is tautological to living and letting others live. You let me (my body) occupy my space and manipulate my matter (property). I do the same with yours. You can have as much “hierarchy avoidance”, as many chocolate covered almonds, or as much sex with doorknobs within your realm (domain, property) as long as you don’t mess with mine. Deal? If not, how else do you propose we resolve/minimize our conflict and go back to production so that we (and our progeny) don’t starve to death?

92

According to you*,* that’s what the question really is. Neither I nor anyone else is obligated to agree with you here.

Now it seems to me at this point that you’re trying to shoehorn anarcho-capitalists into a false dilemma, as expounded in your “two possible alternatives”. Rather than simply taking that as given (after all, why in the world should I do that?), I’m going to ask that you explain how you see Rothbard being inconsistent. Keep in mind that, if you don’t explain this to my satisfaction, I will continue to ask you to do so.

And the latter is the point I’ve been arguing. What now?

Some people, it seems, would say that an “illegitimate agreement” is no agreement at all. That’s why I put “legitimate” in parentheses. I was referring to legitimate agreement. All agreements are certainly not legitimate by my definition.

No, I would not.

So you agree that it’s not necessarily illegitimate to contract with someone else to homestead land on your behalf (i.e. you, not he, will own and occupy the land after he homesteads it). Of course, the situation isn’t so simple with Disney Corporation. However, I also don’t see anything necessarily illegitimate about contracting with one or more others to occupy and use land on your behalf. I’d consider you to still be occupying the land, but not directly.

I agree with you that any claim Disney Corporation made over unhomesteaded land is necessarily illegitimate. What I don’t see is the bearing that has on its right to hire people to homestead land on its behalf.

FedEx and UPS aren’t allowed by law to carry first-class mail. Only the USPS is allowed by law to do that.

Here we go again with your sad mischaracterization of the burden of proof. You were the one who made the positive claim here, hence the burden of proof rests entirely with you. I absolutely will not yield on this.

The two situations aren’t necessarily analogous. The USPS may have bought the building with stolen tax money. I did not buy my house with stolen tax money.

However, I don’t think that’s the entire Rothbardian position. Certainly Rothbard considers purchasing something with stolen assets to be illegitimate. Ultimately, though, a department of the state is illegitimate because the state never had legitimate authority to establish it in the first place.

I think you mean “whether we accept 1, 2, or something else entirely”. But indeed, the dispute clearly reaches the premise level, so there can be no refutation, only disagreement.