Property Rights and the 'BUT YOU DROVE ON ROADS' Objection

Economics Political Theory
41

Contracts are enforced by the spectre of direct conflict. Most people cannot be sure they will win a fight with most other people. Hence, most disputes exist between disputants who face a great deal of uncertainty regarding the outcome of direct conflict. Hence, arbitration (bargaining out a mutually agreeable settlement) is an attractive alternative. Why bother going to arbitration unless you mean to abide by the contract? Violating the contract just resurrects the spectre of direct conflict which you were originally seeking to avoid.

Well, I guess the answer to your question then would be the UN arbitrating force wouldn’t need a contract with its sujugates because both sides will have agreed to abide by its decision in advance.

Well, you have to be careful with the word “stronger”. If I accidentally stumble into a bad neighborhood and end up surrounded by a bunch of thugs, I’m in an extremely weak bargaining position by virtue of the immediate threat to my life. Without resorting to direct threats against me or people I care about, a wealthy man is only stronger than me in a very weak and indirect sense. Furthermore, we should expect that - in the modern, economically-advanced world - companies which specialize in the production of security (so-called private defense agencies, PDAs) would permit the poor masses to pool their resources in the form of small payments to obtain the services of a well-funded and powerful defense agency in the same way that stock shares permit even the poor to own shares in giant corporations.

If all I have is my labor, and I need land to grow food, then I need to negotiate with someone who owns land. The landowner already has land plus his own labor. He doesn’t need to negotiate a deal to live, but I do. Don’t you think this advantage will skew the deal to his favor?

Why would capitalists sell weapons to the laboring class (or to a defense agency that protects them)? As you state, the main purpose of this agency would be to guard the laborers against the capitalists. Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?

It is my view that the interaction of the wealthy and the poor is inherently and ineradicably dangerous for the poor. I believe that this explains why classes emerge even in the absence of the State. You can’t bump into and scratch a wealthy man’s carriage and end up dead in a ditch if you don’t live anywhere near him or shop where he shops.

Well this certainly explains “globalization” doesn’t it? Except I think you have it backwards. The rich are always trying to move the poor into other countries while the poor are always trying to move in with the rich.

We can quibble over the details of which sorts of inherently productive behavior constitute an intrusion on the property of others (for example, a factory that spews smoke into a neighborhood) but there is no room for quibbling on the distinction between mugging someone or growing corn. Mugging is parasitic. It is not productive. It is the seizure by one person of the property of another.

It’s not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything. It’s all negative freedom. You have no right to do anything.

I think you’re missing some pieces of your syllogism.

Premise 1: Property is territory that an entity has ultimate decision-making power over.

Premise 2: The state has ultimate decision-making power over all territory in our society.

Conclusion: All property in our society is statist.

42

Don’t you think this advantage will skew the deal to his favor?

Yes, so what? Even in primitive society, tall gatherers had advantage over short ones, and strong hunters over weak ones, and fast people over slow ones, so what?

Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?

Decisions are made by individuals, not classes. As a class, they might not want to sell, but as individuals, every one of them has an incentive - profit.

It’s not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything.

How comes they are left without any property? Bad luck? What happened to charities?

Premise 1: Property is territory that an entity has ultimate decision-making power over.

I would add something like “legitimate”. You implied “legal” - not even “factual”, as wars and revolutions demonstrate.

PS: nice job mirroring ancap arguments back to them, that is a good exercise for everyone.

43

If you want an “Existence Insurance” policy and in your “Existence Insurance” policy you agree that violence can be used against you under certain circumstances such as fleeing or eluding justice if you have injured someone or damaged someones property…

If your “Existence Insurance” policy specifies violence will be used to insure justice or defend against any aggressor who injures you or damages your property…

Why does it matter who is doing the enforcement? Why does it matter who is doing the insuring? Isn’t the only thing that matters is insurers and enforcers satisfying consumers? Does a monopoly magically satisfy all consumers in an of itself because of magical monopoly status or are consumers only satisfied by a monopoly when a threat of competition exists among insurers and/or enforcers and all consumers have chosen to do business with a monopoly? Insuring and enforcing involves liability and risk.

44

And what if the dispute is with the UN itself? How can it judge in its own cause? And what if I (a national government) don’t like the UN’s courts? What if I think they’re biased or they just have shitty rules or processes that lead to poor performance in arbitrating disputes? Who gave the UN the right to exclude all others from providing dispute-resolution services? God? Fortune? Who?

Clayton -

45

Yes, so what? Even in primitive society, tall gatherers had advantage over short ones, and strong hunters over weak ones, and fast people over slow ones, so what?

Because that advantage will mean that entity will continue to grow relative to the rest of society and will eventually will be able to get away with using force. It’s the road to serfdom.

Decisions are made by individuals, not classes. As a class, they might not want to sell, but as individuals, every one of them has an incentive - profit.

Here’s a market analysis. A weapons manufacturer wouldn’t sell weapon’s to its own employees or wouldn’t allow them to join a defense organization. If it did, it would have less bargaining power with its employees than a weapons manufacturer that didn’t sell weapons to its employees. Thus, weapons manufacturers that sold weapons to their employees would be less profitable and would be driven out of business. Additionally, the suppliers of manufacturers wouldn’t want to sell raw materials to a company that is going to arm the supplier’s employees. And then there is the capitalist defense agencies who would obviously prefer to represent a company that has no opposition from a labor defense agency. Thus, a capitalist defense agency that represents a weapons manufacturer would likely only contract with them under the condition that they don’t sell any weapons to any of the labor defense agencies in other companies that the capitalist defense agency represents.

BTW, there is a real life example of something like a proletarian defense agency: The Black Panthers. California law allowed you to carry a gun in public as long as you displayed it. The Panthers would follow cops around with their guns on full display to monitor them for excessive use of force. Of course the law was soon repealed because of this.

How comes they are left without any property? Bad luck? What happened to charities?

One isn’t born with any property. If a child’s parents don’t believe that the child is entitled to food, the child will have no freedom and die. If no one believes that he or she has obligations to others, then no one will have any freedom. If ancaps support charity, then they must believe that people are entitled to something other than the right not to have their property intruded upon.

46

And what if the dispute is with the UN itself? How can it judge in its own cause? And what if I (a national government) don’t like the UN’s courts? What if I think they’re biased or they just have shitty rules or processes that lead to poor performance in arbitrating disputes? Who gave the UN the right to exclude all others from providing dispute-resolution services? God? Fortune? Who?

I believe Rothbard supports a competing court system. So if you think the UN is biased, you can also arbitrate with the United States, China, etc. Of course whoever you use as your arbitrator is going to demand some sort of price (e.g. exclusive access to oil wells).

If you think about national governments as individuals and their territory as property, then a pre-UN* world at the global scale should give you a pretty good idea of what an ancap society would look like.

*Even now, the UN is so weak that it could hardly be considered an international government.

47

Absurd. It would be a PR nightmare akin to McDonalds not selling its food to its employees, or Chevy not selling its cars to it employees. Imagine watching an entire McDonald’s staff rushing across the street to Burger King to grab lunch, or every mechanic and salesperson at the Chevy dealership driving away in Fords — not a good reflection on that particular McDonalds or Chevy dealership.

The weapons manufacturer that sold weapons to its employees would have a larger potential customer base (the general public plus its own emplyees), be a more attractive employer (people that are good at making guns would want to work there, as they could purchase the guns) thereby gaining the more skilled employees in the field, leading to a superior product, allowing them to pay higher wages.

The manufacturer who refused to sell to its employees would end up with a bad image, less skilled workers producing inferior products, spending their money on the competition’s wares.

48

Absurd. It would be a PR nightmare akin to McDonalds not selling its food to its employees, or Chevy not selling its cars to it employees. Imagine watching an entire McDonald’s staff rushing across the street to Burger King to grab lunch, or every mechanic and salesperson at the Chevy dealership driving away in Fords — not a good reflection on that particular McDonalds or Chevy dealership.

The weapons manufacturer that sold weapons to its employees would have a larger potential customer base (the general public plus its own emplyees), be a more attractive employer (people that are good at making guns would want to work there, as they could purchase the guns) thereby gaining the more skilled employees in the field, leading to a superior product, allowing them to pay higher wages.

The manufacturer who refused to sell to its employees would end up with a bad image, less skilled workers producing inferior products, spending their money on the competition’s wares.

A PR nightmare? A weapons manufacturer’s first clients would be property owners, who need the guns to protect their property. The masses don’t need guns if the property owner doesn’t have them. They’d just out number him, take his property, and run. Thus, it would be a PR nightmare when the manufacturers start discovering robbers tha have guns too! The food analogy is not a good one. Giving food to employees does not give them more bargaining power. Slave owners gave their slaves food. Why didn’t they give them weapons too? Why doesn’t the state let its citizens have weapons? After all, allowing the sales of weapons would bring in more tax revenue.

49

Because that advantage will mean that entity will continue to grow relative to the rest of society

Let’s take a step back. You noticed, that a person with land has a better bargaining power that a landless person. Fine. Assuming “that entity” still means the landlord, please define, what it means for it to “continue to grow”. Does it mean acquiring more land? From whom, from other landlords? I am not trying to stall the discussion, I just want to be sure we are on the same page.

If it did, it would have less bargaining power with its employees than a weapons manufacturer that didn’t sell weapons to its employees.

I think weapons influence bargaining power only when the perceived cost of conflict is comparable to potential gains. Value is subjective, of course, but somehow I have difficulties imagining people willing to start armed conflict just to buy a better car. Your analisys might work for labor markets with wages at sustenance level, though.

If ancaps support charity, then they must believe that people are entitled to something other than the right not to have their property intruded upon.

I would say ancaps’ view of charities is not that recepients are entitled to anything but that the donors are free to give (and gain satisfaction from that).

50

Let’s take a step back. You noticed, that a person with land has a better bargaining power that a landless person. Fine. Assuming “that entity” still means the landlord, please define, what it means for it to “continue to grow”. Does it mean acquiring more land? From whom, from other landlords? I am not trying to stall the discussion, I just want to be sure we are on the same page.

Yes, more land/capital. First they would take all the unowned land, then the landowners who were more sucessful doing this would use their superior bargaining power to acquire land from the smaller landlords.

I think weapons influence bargaining power only when the perceived cost of conflict is comparable to potential gains. Value is subjective, of course, but somehow I have difficulties imagining people willing to start armed conflict just to buy a better car. Your analisys might work for labor markets with wages at sustenance level, though.

A company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will be more profitable. Once one company is able to do this, all companies will have to resort to violating their contracts in order to remain profitable and survive in the “free” market.

I would say ancaps’ view of charities is not that recepients are entitled to anything but that the donors are free to give (and gain satisfaction from that).

The other side of an obligation is an entitlement. If I see a person drowning and I feel obligated to save her, then I must believe that she is entitled to being saved. Or else I’m expecting some sort payment from her, but that’s exploitation not charity.

51

I have a couple responses in regards to that Hoppe lecture.

1.) The way Hoppe presents the apple picking analogy is misleading. He claims that the laborer chooses the wage because he prefers having less now than having more later and that both parties are better off than they were before. However, in real life, the laborer doesn’t choose the present over the future, but chooses the wage because if he doesn’t there won’t be a future. Second, the laborer doesn’t choose the wage because he thinks it will make him better off than he was before, but because if he doesn’t he will soon be worse off than he currently is. Without it he will starve, not be able to pay his rent, etc. He sells his labor to keep what he has.

2.) Hoppe claims monarchy is better than democracy! He would rather live in North Korea than in Denmark! His argument is that a monarch owns a country whereas in a democratic republic, the leaders are merely renting it. An owner has a greater stake in his property and doesn’t want to see it be devalued. Thus, the monarch has a greater incentive to maintain the value of the property. This argument has an interesting antecedent. During the US era of slavery, the South argued that laborers were better off in the South than in North. Why? Because in the South the landowners owned their laborers and thus would take better care of them than those in the North who merely rented their laborers.

So what is wrong with this logic? A false premise. Propertarians don’t value their property, they value their control of their property. Once that property stops facilitating their desire to control, they couldn’t care less what happens to it. Thus an elected politician who is in danger of losing his control is easier to persuade than an unelected monarch who has much less danger of losing control. Ancap is fundamentally anti-ecology. The environment doesn’t have the right to exist but the “right” to be controlled. According to the homesteading principle, land can’t be owned until it’s transformed. Thus, a forest can’t be owned until it’s chopped down. In an ancap society there would be no forests. A logging company that wasted its time planting trees would be less profitable than one that simply moved on to the next unowned forest. If ancap were ever realized, it would be an ecological disaster of the highest magnitude.

52

So you’re saying the glass is really half-empty?

It may have escaped your notice, but Denmark is a monarchy and North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic.

Well, ecological groups like to raise money for political lobbying to get governments to pass regulations designed to protect nature in its current state. Don’t you think it would be better if they owned the land? Then they could make sure that no one would cut down the trees.

53

Where do they run? In your dream, what happens after the property-less masses acquire property?

54

I give a LOT to charity - both money and time, and I in no way feel obligated to do so. In fact, if I did feel obligated, it would no longer be charitable on my part. Charity is volunatary; obligations are not.

55

It may have escaped your notice, but Denmark is a monarchy and North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic.

And the US Department of Defense only defends people. I recommend reading Orwell’s 1984.

Well, ecological groups like to raise money for political lobbying to get governments to pass regulations designed to protect nature in its current state. Don’t you think it would be better if they owned the land? Then they could make sure that no one would cut down the trees.

How could they own the land? According to the homesteading principle, you can’t own land until you transform it. So preservation of something untransformed is impossible.

56

I give a LOT to charity - both money and time, and I in no way feel obligated to do so. In fact, if I did feel obligated, it would no longer be charitable on my part. Charity is volunatary; obligations are not.

If a society is goint to depend on the voluntary desire of charity, then why can’t it also depend on the voluntary desire to respect another’s property–rather than enforce it as an obligation?

57

Doesn’t the notion of a prior agreement itself imply a contract?

Can you explain what you mean by “skew the deal to his favor”? To me this could mean anything from enslavement to charging a price for food that you think is “unfair”.

This presumes two things:

  1. Laborers and capitalists necessarily consider each other to be enemies.

  2. If given the chance, laborers would necessarily expropriate the property of the capitalists.

Can you please support the necessity of these two notions?

Sure you do. You have the right to do anything that doesn’t infringe on others’ rights.

Since you define “property” as territory (i.e. land), that means you don’t consider buildings, tools, machines, or even human bodies to be property? Why not?

58

I disagree. I consider one to be born with property in his or her own body.

This seems like a non sequitur to me. Can you please support it?

Again, I’m sorry but I don’t see how this follows. Can you demonstrate how one’s freedom necessarily follows from obligations to others?

How is charity the same as entitlement?

59

Can you please support the notion that “the masses” will necessarily, at any/all times, outnumber property owners, take their property, and run?

Also, I think you’re equivocating with the word “property”. Do you consider “property” to mean only territory, or do you consider it to mean more than that?

60

This implies that it’s inevitable that “bigger” landlords (i.e. those who own more land) will acquire land from the “smaller” landlords (i.e. those who own less land). Please support this implication.

Please support the notion that a company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will necessarily be more profitable.

Do you think obligations and entitlements are objective or subjective? Do you think all obligations and entitlements are created equal? Why or why not?