It seems that there should be a place for public property in a system of market anarchy if such a system followed the homesteading principle. But there does seem to be some difficulties with such an arrangement.
Say, for example, that an area of land was used for hiking by a people in a nearby community. What would happen if another group of people wanted to put a mine on that land? Would the first-users in such a case have a ownership in that land? How would the communal owners decide whether or not to sell, since it may be difficult to acertain which people are co-owners? Would such a situation mean that the land is unsellable? Would that land be locked up forever?
Does anyone know of any articles that deal with the public property under anarchy?
I found his arguments flawed. He completely overlooks methodological individualism. Homesteading is action. Groups do not act. Only individuals in groups act. So there is no common property. There is only individual private property.
Is methodological individualism necessarily inconsistent with common property? Cannot people act in concert?
For example, what if me, my brother, and my four friends begin to clear and farm some unowned land. We work all the land together and do not demarcate individual plots. Would we not own this land jointly?
And would not common property just be an extension of this principle? Say if a community began to use a path for walking. They all act individually but with common understanding and purpose; they act individually but in concert.
I think that it would be unjust for someone else to come along, build a gate and charge a toll since the land is already in use.
It depends on what we mean exactly by “common property”.
If A and B own plots of land, X and Y respectively and X and Y together make up a larger plot of land, Z, than in a sense we can say A and B commonly own Z. But if we take it to mean this, than this is no different than saying that A and B own X and Y respectively and common property is no different than individual property.
Now, if A and B “commonly” own Z, without it being subdivided into individual domains of control, there are some inconsistencies with methodological individualism. It is inconceivable that the mixing of their labour can be equivolently, geometrically distributed across Z given that the range of control commanded by the bodies of A and B are mutually exclusive and the quality of labour of each individual is different. And if their homesteading of Z is unequal across Z, than they each homestead X and Y, mutually exclusive plots of land which they each have individual rights to and we’re back at square one. If they make a contractual arrangement beforehand, where each has an equal right of control over Z, than there must still be some type of conflict resolution (the default position being that neither has the right to do anything with Z without the other’s permission) if they each desire a different mutually exclusive use of the land. But in this case A and B each hold individual property rights in terms of contractual obligations they can impose on the other and we are back to individual private property rights.
This would be a form of contractual ownership. There would still have to be some kind of convention to decide who hold what rights to the various uses of the land.
They do not act in concert. Any person who walks on the path makes it a more suitable choice for the next person who walks on it, but their is no agreement. Nor do they homestead a path, just an easement.
It would only be unjust if they are charging a toll to the people who have been frequently and consistently using it previously, because they have earned easement rights. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to build a toll and charge newcomers.