Ownership for use only?

Economics Political Theory
1

Hi,

I ran into an anarchist blog post arguing for ownership for use only.

Basically, he argues, in the tradition of Benjamin Tucker, that land should belong to whoever uses it, as opposed to who first appropriated it, transformed it, or acquired it in voluntary exchange.

So the argument is calling for the illigitimacy of rent, as a revenue derived from ownership without use.

My perpective on the subject is that there’s major problems with this proposition.

First, from a natural law perspective, obviously, is a violation of the freedom of contracts. I can’t control a resource, then do a voluntary exchange with someone else according to some terms. I.e. I can’t build a house, then rent my house to someone else willing, since according to this principle, the house would become the tenant’s property as long as he uses it.

Then, why stop there? If I go out for a day-trip, no one is using the house, why isn’t someone else allowed to take possession of it?

Why would somone mearly using someone’s elses property becomes the owner of it? If I don’t use my iPod for a week, why should anyone be entitled to take it and use it as its own?

Since I don’t use one of my kidney, why isn’t someone else wanting to use it be entitled to take it from me?

Second, from an utilitarian perspective, obviously, incentive to produce would be massively curtailed, since produced good can be appropriated at anytime when not directly in use. It would be truely a state of primitive hunter-gatherer, where no one would produce anything, and/or constantly focused on homesteading currently owned resources, or seeking which of other people’s property he can expripriate by starting to use them.

Anyhow, my question is: Is anyone in this forum able to make an persuasive defense of such principle?

Because it seems obviously flawed to me.

2

There used to be a few people who tried, but I don’t think there is anyone anymore. Maybe Brainpolice, but he’s not known for finishing debates.

You could try the forums of the libertarian left, run by Wombatron. The language and tone there can be pretty vulgar and hostile though, don’t expect a polite discussion.

3

sorry for my language, but this is retarded principle, because renting a land is also using it, it’s part of the entrepaneurship, as far as I know. I don’t get it how could anyone defend this principle. I need to think more about it. Even though I do not believe in ownership of a land, but I wouldn’t argue such principle.

4

Tucker’s theory is flawed in what sense? In the sense that it leads to a lower standard of living than our current capitalistic definition of property? If you are going to call something flawed on consequentialist grounds then you are doing nothing more than saying “This is what I like, therefore this is what EVERYONE should like”. You cannot maintain that something is flawed based on an arbitrary value judgement. It is only flawed if it self-contradictory/fallacious etc

Individualist anarchism makes NO general consequentialist claims concerning wealth, therefore to judge it on that basis is just a giant strawman.

5

Tucker’s theory is flawed in what sense? In the sense that it leads to a lower standard of living than our current capitalistic definition of property? If you are going to call something flawed on consequentialist grounds then you are doing nothing more than saying “This is what I like, therefore this is what EVERYONE should like”. You cannot maintain that something is flawed based on an arbitrary value judgement. It is only flawed if it self-contradictory/fallacious etc

Individualist anarchism makes NO general consequentialist claims concerning wealth, therefore to judge it on that basis is just a giant strawman.

  1. I didn’t say that the principle of ‘ownership’ for use was self contradictory, I said it was a violation of freedom of contract, and leading to general impovrishment.

  2. Saying that a social order, such as one in which property rights are not recognized, lead to a lower and subsistance level standard of living is a valid argument against it. Because the standard of living is a subjective concept, and the argument implies that for each individual, his own standard of living in his subjective opinon would be reduced, is not an argument akin to “I don’t like it, therefor it’s bad”.

  3. On the contrary, an argument in favor of such order would be that “I don’t like rent, therefor I don’t think anyone should charge rent” is attempting to promote a personal preference to the rank of a general rule. In a free anarcho-capitalist sociery, organized by strickly property right principle, if one doesn’t like land rent, he has the choice of either not renting out his own land, or purchasing his own land, hence not paying rent.

What one is not free in an anarcho capitalist society, is for one for expropriate property owners on the arbitrary justification that they don’t appear to be using it at any point of time, which is what the ‘ownership for use only’ implies.

  1. I don’t think you understand the meaning of “strawman”.
6

sorry for my language, but this is retarded principle, because renting a land is also using it, it’s part of the entrepaneurship, as far as I know. I don’t get it how could anyone defend this principle. I need to think more about it. Even though I do not believe in ownership of a land, but I wouldn’t argue such principle.

Very good point regarding the act of renting, being a use-relation as well.

Why are you against ownership of land, then?

7

I’ve never really understood why the ownership for use principle should lead to rent not working, since rent is a way of using something. I do sympathize in that I don’t see the intuition Locke calls for as to why incorporating something into my ongoing plans should imply I get exclusive use of it forever.

8

As a renter, arguing against renting, and ignoring its many benefits, is just asinine.

9

I’m pretty confused about the idea of renting too. I figure that I should be able to make someone pay me rent if they want to live in a house I either paid for or built (assuming they don’t want to buy the house). But, at the same time, how much time has to go by before people can claim an ‘abandoned’ house for themselves? My house may not have anyone living in it for 10 years but the maintainence cost is so low that I have no real reason to rent/sell. Clearly, though, if someone wants to live in that ‘abandoned’ house after they realize no one has lived in it for 10 years, there’s still a demand. I don’t get when the ownership ends (if it even does).

I also rent, but I wonder if the selling price for houses would decrease dramatically if no one rented.

10

What purpose does this line of reasoning serve? I find the premise irrelevant. People like to rent. It’s like contemplating the price of apples pretending a situation where no one likes apples. Such a situation seems a bit fictitious.

11

When you rent, you sign a contract, or lease that spells out the terms. If you are renting for 10 years, I’m sure there would be a lease spelling out you’ve been there for that long, not to mention, a trail of rent payments to follow showing that you were paying the landlord to be there. This, amongst other things, would allow others to realize that it is not your property and you were in fact renting.

If someone tries to take over a house, thinking that it is abandoned, when it is in fact not, it would probably go to court and both parties would have to prove ownership.

As to your last point, why would there ever be a point in time when no one is renting? How would this scenario ever come to be?

12

I see you’re not using the $100 in your pocket. I better use them instead (?)

13

It’s fictitious right now. We were discussing what would come of a house if the owner/builder of the house left it alone for 10 years without maintaining it, and then someone came along and tried to homestead it. Would the original builder/owner have any say of whether they new people could stay in the house or demolish it to build a new home? Technically he may have just abandoned it, but it’s a hypothetical situation.

That was my question. Can someone claim ownership of a house after not maintaining it for 10 years? You could probably leave a cabin in the middle of the woods for a few years without maintaining it - assuming it’s old-style with no air conditioning and all - but would that mean someone could move in after a certain period of time without the owner checking up on it? If so, who decides how much time is appropriate to deem a house abandoned?

14

because I believe it is impossible to own land. I believe in homesteading.

15

Decides a person, who wants to take over it. He must be aware, that if the house is actually owned by someone, he will face the consequencies of tresspassing etc… I think :slight_smile: If house is locked, etc, then obviously someone is owning it. I don’t know for sure, I think it also depends on the laws in that neibghourhood.

16

If land cannot be owned how does one resolve disputes of:

  • Home Sizes
  • Housing Placements
  • Fencing
  • Yard, luxuries like pools ect…
17

Bingo. It is arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, it is not a lawful principle.

18

DRO.

19

yes, just like the age of consent, or “lawful age” (to sign contracts, etc.)

20

I believe that homesteading is merely used in natural law terminology to describe the method in which a human individual can have a legitimate claim of ownership over previously unowned resource. The natural law does not state what you should do with this resource once you have finished the original appropriation, which meaning is contained in the method of homesteading. It does not oblige the individual who performed the homesteading to use the resource for shelter, or for heating himself, or to produce clothes. It also does not oblige him to be the only one who has physical contact with it, which means that it does not exclude everyone else, the ones he would not like to invite and the ones he would like to invite.

If what you are saying is valid, then, for example, if an individual homesteads 1000 acres of land, and is not capable of cultivating it by himself, and decides to invite other people to join him into “using the land”, then the moment a guest begins using a piece of it - it is now his property. Or what if the individual does not want to do farming anymore and decides not to do any work on the land, but rather to leave all of it to other people, and in exchange he will collect a sum of money that is payed according to a contract.

If what you are suggesting is “who uses the resource is the owner” is implemented - then no division of labour will be there and criminality will be very high.