Not at all. What I am saying is that if the original owners (or their heirs) can’t be found, then whoever currently has the property is their possession has the best claim, assuming that they aren’t the criminals who took the property from its rightful owners. Of course, who exactly is a criminal in the situation can be debated; in the case of a factory that is built on land seized with eminent domain, should workers be recognized to have a vaild claim? I would say yes, but I can see the arguments against it. It’s not an issue that has a blanket solution.
This is straight from Rothbard, and it’s a position that he held throughout his life, from right to left and back to right. “How and How Not to Desocialize” is the best summary of his views in this area, although he also deals with it in “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle”, and either FANL or ToE (can’t remember which off the top of my head). And like I said earlier, it would only apply when the rightful owner can’t be found, which may or may not be common. I have no idea.
A and B are not compatible. If you recognize that the state launders ownership (aka, rightful heir) then you’re basically trying to do an end run with appropriation. The original owners of property bought or constructed by the state can never be found, precisely because the state launders clarity of ownership.
Yeah, however, just because someone hired you to fix the toilet, doesn’t mean you own the healthspa. These people working on or with property, in many cases are government agents, receiving 100% tax provided income (fruits of theft) and based upon your notion of workers getting to appropriate, would have the highest claim to plunder even further.
Sorry, not buying it. And yes, you should be able to see the arguments against it. As I tried (somewhat successfully I think) to explain to JCFolsom, until you have operated as an entrepreneur, until you have invested your own capital, hired workers, taken losses, and reaped profits, this worker versus capital investment attitude (basically, Marxist class theory) will continue to be based upon a false notion of justice that is completely misguided. The Hoppean class theory is much more developed, and very relevant in a western world dominated by social democracies, where the parasites include the government wage earners, taking a wage and then discounting back to the state in the form of taxes, so they can pretend to be like the rest of us honest non-state labourers. Not to mention the welfare entitlement crowd, that feed off the productive, and then by the system you mentioned, would end up grabbing what little was left after the collapse of the state because no clear line of ownership could be proven by tax payers.
It’s basically a system which rewards people for being as dishonest, immoral, unproductive and criminal as possible. What next, the President gets to homestead the White House and Air Force One?
I must say I am extremely puzzled by the bizarre moralistic positions taken on the issue of privatization by people who consider themselves economists. The primary goal for any economist would be for capital to be made private, whoever earns a rent on the transaction, as private capital would be invested in and augmented as well as being available to the markets. What is the point of holding back privatization if the roads remain crumbling and taxpayers are still footing the bill anyway?
Certainly it would be nice for the rent on the public sale of the asset to be fully and evenly distributed amongst taxpayers, but considering this is a public process it is unlikely for it to take place. Insiders are going to profit from their positions as insiders. For the markets that doesn’t matter.
As we’ve pointed out to you many times before, there currently is no just owner in the scenario. You’re proposing that the thief sell off the property that they stole to the highest bidder. It’s disusting, frankly.
Since it has been redistributed intergenerationally and in a complex web, there is no way to accurately allocate it to the original owners. As time passes by, the original owners simply die and to the extent that they are still alive we cannot calculate precisely which portion is who’s because its been redistributed so many times over in such a complex web of distribution. So, in effect, you’d basically be engaging in another redistribution scheme. This is deja vu - I’ve pointed this out already ad nauseum.
But you and Juan are also incorrect in your criticism of Stranger. His mistake is that believing that fascism (privatization of a monopoly) is preferable to socialism (public ownership).
The issue isn’t selling the road, it’s the right to compete by building private roads.Changing the ownership structure of a monopoly is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Pomp and show.
That’s your problem. You’re not a libertarian in terms of libertarian ethics. You don’t even aknowledge that there is a field of libertarian ethics - despite the fact that this very website has extensive information on such a field.
You’re not argueing against my position, so I am forced to conclude that you just like to oppose me out of your own personal motivations. Who said anything about re-arranging the structure of a monopoly? You’re making my argument for me as if I didn’t already say more or less the exact same thing! You must purposefully like to devil’s advocate even when you clearly don’t disagree.
Truly, this post of yours was pointless. The criticism of Stranger as *completely ignoring libertarian ethics" is not incorrect, it’s a big part of the problem, and you’re merely sidetracking from that in the attempt to be contrarian.
Those who have lost property to the state, have to have the highest claim on property controlled by the state. It’s illogical to believe otherwise. To maintain that the criminal laundering of property titles by the state negates justice for property holders is childish fantasy by people who dream of getting cool stuff through homesteading, which in some LL circles seems to be a common meme for ne’er do well young men with low social status and levels of achievement.
This is really no different than the non-sensical “it’s ok to throw rocks at Macy’s because a corporation is a state fiction”. It’s a paradox to maintain that the state can change the nature of ownership, but because the state is illegitimate, there is no more ownership. All of those shareholders and tax payers were coerced to throw their money into a pit where whoever can grab it first, gets to keep it.
Either the state is legitimate in ordering property titles, or it is not. It can’t work both ways, and this is a fundamental failing of a lot of left-libertarian thinking.
Monopoly is a legal status, not a material condition. It is a completely different debate.
There are uncountable monopolies in an uncountable number of industries. If there must be a monopoly however it is much better for the consumer for the monopoly to be a private monopoly than a public one, as the private monopoly will invest in and increase the capital stock while a public monopoly will deplete it.
In that sense fascism is preferable to socialism. But you are incorrect as to the definition of fascism. In fascism there is no privatization, the government takes control of industries which are de jure still in private ownership. In fact they are now in public ownership and so the capital stock will be depleted.