Also, I just want to point out that I am not discussing what Walter Block said specifically about fractional reserve banking. I am talking in general about the impossibility of full joint ownership. I haven’t thought about how this applies to fractional reserve banking and co-ownership of the same sum of money.
I actually linked to the wrong post, sorry. This is the one I should have linked to, but here is what I said:
Natural law is not the end all, be all of law. Like I said, if people don’t have the brains to sort out potential conflicts beforehand, they are just asking for trouble. Social norms can help sort out the issue if people didn’t take the time to sort it out beforehand, but natural law will get you nowhere.
The bank owns all money deposited with it. Depositors have a personal claim on ‘their’ money that can be ceded.
When I said “dissolved full ownership” I was talking about in the type of case where you eliminate “full” ownership and end up with “half” ownership…like the example currently in discussion. If you recall, that comment was in direct response to your statment: “Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned.”
My question to you is, when was the last time you had “full ownership” of something and then dropped your ownership to half?
What’s the point of this story?
The funny thing is, that sounds exactly like what you’re describing. Because that is actually closer to a situation in which you could both have “full ownership” of the vehicle.
Again, two people cannot logically have “full ownership” of the same thing at the same time. That doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying you’re only partially pregnant.
Bingo. You can’t restrict everyone, can you. You do not have 100% of this right because neither you nor she can prevent the other access to the property. You CANNOT prevent 100% of people from use of the car. Ergo, your rights to the car are limited…as in, not “full” and 100%.
So?
Again, it depends how the corporation is setup. It depends on what the agreements are. I’m sorry that contractual agreements are for some reason not good enough for you, but that’s the way it is.
I have no idea why it’s so important to you that a thousand people be able to all be said to have “full ownership” of the same property at the same time, and that any sort of conflict avoidanc with regard to this arrangement be derived solely from “natural rights”.
If you scroll down from that post, you’ll see where I asked the same question presented my own issues with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics here. As far as I can tell, you have to presuppose (i.e. assume) an interest in and goal of conflict avoidance.
Do you believe that favoring one group of people over another creates a better society?
And besides…I don’t think Hoppe ever said anything about the goal being “a better society”. That is a subjective value judgement. I’m pretty sure his goal was conflict avoidance and resolution.
“Clarity” is not conflict resolution. I have no idea why you think “clarity” would be a sufficient case for that.
So basically, you’re saying if you have to take something down to its logical conclusions to show how absurd it is, then “there must be something else to it”…because logic (and apparently your own gut feeling) is just not enough.
You cannot be serious.
If you are, take it down to its logical conclusion. You’re basically concluding the Marxist notion that property itself is “exploitative” or “immoral” or whatever other evil thing you want to term it…that essentially property is invalid. That takes us right back to square one. You claiming that you own your body descriminates against those who were not born into your body. Ergo, if we follow universality, you do not own your body. Ergo…“no one would be able to even breath without getting permission from everyone else to do so…which of course, they would not be able to grant such permission because they themselves would require permission from everyone else to be able to move their mouth and communicate that they grant such permission. So basically everyone would all die out in a matter of minutes from asphyxiation.”
Maybe they are. But I don’t see how it follows that they violate universality. Not to mention, if we’re talking about a Stateless society, the property owner makes the rules with regard to his property.
No, it doesn’t. You’re comparing apples and pencils. In the “emergency vehicles have right of way” situation, you’re talking about a rule set up by a property owner that dictates the use of his property. In the “government can take my house away”, you’re talking about a mob of people giving themselves the authority to take ownership and control of property that belongs to someone else.
I have no idea how in the world you find those anywhere close to being similar.
OK, I think that makes a lot of sense. In that case, it makes sense to define ownership as rightful control over an object. Restricting others’ use to it is a part of control.
Actually, we can. If I don’t want my wife to use my property in a certain way, she can’t, even though it’s her property too. And vice versa.
But, I think gotlucky answered my question regarding joint ownership. My question about the legal problem with socialism remains.
That is because you apparently don’t understand why I brought the Earth II example and asked the question about joint ownership. I am trying to figure out what exactly is the legal problem with socialism. (I already know what the economic problem is.) I.e., I am trying to figure out why joint ownership of all property (barring people’s own bodies) would be a bad setup from legal point of view.
No, my but the reasons for my disbelief are economic. In fact, my pseudo-socialist friend also agrees with libertarians about the need for private property due to tragedy of the commons and calculation problem. But he disagrees that the problem with socialism is moral or legal; in his opinion, the problem is only of utilitarian nature.
I was under impression that clarity of boundaries is one of the main requirements for conflict resolution/prevention. (Boundaries in both physical and abstract sense.) So, what is your answer? Why would a pseudo-socialist system be a bad case of conflict resolution/prevention?
For instance, I work in a lab, where all the equipment is owned by the lab owner. At the same time, people are assigned their own stuff, which only they (and not others) can use. For instance, nobody can use my microscope without my permission. But, in reality, the boss owns the microscope, not I. At any moment, he can exercise the right of eminent domain and make someone else a joint user of the microscope. I would have no right to protest.
So, conflict resolution works just fine in this situation. Nobody can use my stuff, unless the boss has decided that he or she can.
Now, you will say: but in this case, the boss owns all the stuff. But you might imagine that we were a corporation and everyone owned all the stuff. Conflict prevention resolution would still work just fine. (Nobody can use my stuff, unless the corporation, or the elected board, votes that he or she can.)
So, I am demonstrating how conflict resolution and prevention would work just fine in a society where everyone owns every item, except one’s body. Therefore, from legal (not economic) point of view, why ought not such a legal system exist? (The reason why a system in which even the bodies are owned ought not exist is the one you and Hoppe described: nobody would be able to breath; also, nobody would be able to give each other permission. I.e., such a system would be impossible and self-contradictory. But that’s not the case with non-body items.)
The function of reductio ad absurdum is to show that the logic is flawed. It doesn’t explain how and why the logic is flawed. It just demonstrates that there is likely a problem with the argument, since it leads to apparently absurd conclusions. I don’t need convincing that socialism is unjust. I need to be able to explain to someone using clear arguments why, starting from our definition of what a law is (or ought to be), we can derive logically that socialism is unjust.
And no, gut feeling is not a good argument.
Interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_ownership
This would seem to mean that it is actually your property and not hers. Could you give an example of what you mean?
Okay, I’m gonna stop you right there. In this particular scenario, that is exactly what is happening. The boss owns the stuff (or his boss, or his boss’s boss, you get the point). The boss has the final say in how the property gets used. Regarding your use of the term “eminent domain”, that is not the correct usage of the term, but I understand what you are trying to say.
Well, this is why contract law is so important. If any number of individuals would like to band together and own some property together, they need to sort out the rules regarding the use of the property before they buy it! Why must it be put to a vote? How many votes are necessary for it to even count? How many votes need to be in favor of or against something for a particular side to win? Does it need a majority or just a plurality? Does every member get to vote or does just the elected board get to vote?
Sure, theoretically, you could get 1,000 people to form a corporation together and all agree to the same rules, but it’s really not going to happen in the real world. I’ve used this analogy in another thread: Theoretically, tomorrow everyone in America could burn all their cash. It’s not going to happen.
You might find small groups of people who are willing to enter into these types of contracts together. The most common is that of husband and wife, but even then, most married couples still keep certain items to be their exclusive property.
Another common group of people that do this are business partners. But again, it’s rare to find more than 2 people willing to share in a business, and usually even then someone is in charge. It’s just really rare to find people willing to partake in such a system. There is just no way that 300 million Americans are going to want to partake in a legal system this complicated. The free market is complex enough.
Can’t we just say that any instance of “joint ownership” will necessarily imply partial ownership on the part of each joint owner? I mean, it’s not that hard to grasp.
As I said, if I want to alter something in the car, and she doesn’t want it, she can restrict me from doing it. Or if I want to take it somewhere, but she doesn’t approve, she can forbid me to do so. And vice versa: I can similarly restrict her.
That is why, any time two people use something, there must be consensus as to its use. (Of course, one person can always say: “I don’t care what you do with this.” Or: “You don’t need to ask my permission if you want to take the car to X.” There may be implicit understanding about such cases.)
As I said, I only used this example to show how conflict resolution could happen even with joint ownership. Therefore, it would not defy the logic and purpose of a legal system.
What do you mean? You had a bunch of people living in 1970s (for example – i.e., sufficiently removed from the revolution, but not yet in the 80s with Perestroika) in the Soviet Union, and many of them believed that there was nothing strange about common ownership of stuff. My mother, for instance, and all her friends, knew that the system was corrupt and knew that a lot of things were wrong economically, but they didn’t think that the legal philosophy of common ownership was unjust.
You have today plenty of people in the US supporting the idea of eminent domain, which is based on the concept that the society (represented by the government) owns all the land in the US, and the supposed private ownership of the land by individual entities is merely a grant of usage from the government, subject to reversal at any moment. Certainly, individuals cannot agress against each other’s property, but that’s because it’s not theirs; it’s the society’s, and the society did not grant them usage of others’ property.
If you read the article about allodial ownership that I posted, you will see that the system of de jure common ownership is in majority of the Western countries. So, I don’t think it’s fair to say that people can only agree to jointly own stuff under very limited circumstances.
Be it as it may, I am not trying to figure out whether joint ownership of all property (barring bodies) is a subjectively attractive idea; I am trying to figure out why it’s a wrong idea.
Also, the question of whether people would agree to form a contractual agreement with each other to jointly own stuff is irrelevant. That’s now what I am asking.
I am asking why people ought not, instead of living in a society with natural rights and private ownership, decide to live in a society with communal ownership and assigned usage, like in all the examples I described. And I am not looking for an economic answer (“life would suck in such a society”). I am looking for a legal answer: why would the purpose of law (to resolve and prevent conflict) not be achieved in such a society?
Could you please explain how someone else being able to restrict your usage of property does not contradict your having 100% ownership of it?
I guess it boils down to logic and ethics. Obviously legal structure is a product of ethics, so you have to delve into that. And ultimately I think it just comes down to the rights of actual full property ownership…where a person own something and actually does have 100% control. This is why I don’t understand how you can have such a problem with conceding that two people cannot have 100% ownership of the same thing at the same time.
I think Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism would be really helpful for you here.
That’s kind of interesting. But you did say it went against your sense of justice.
Well sure… “legal systems make possible conflict-free use of resources, by establishing visible boundaries that nonowners can avoid”…but that’s not all it takes. You need rules for property assignment. And as Kinsella goes on to say in that piece: “Libertarianism does not endorse just any property assignment rule, however.[13] It favors self-ownership over other-ownership (slavery).”
I highely recommend that piece, especially the “Self-ownership and Conflict-avoidance” section. It think it will help elucidate the issue and the libertarian understanding.
a) The conflict resolution works in the corporate situation because it boils down to logical assignment of property ownership. The owner(s) of the property make the rules with regard to that property’s use. It works because they have understood exclusion rights to their property.
If you assume that everyone equally owns everything, there are no such exclusion rights. Therefore, there really is no such thing as property.
b) There is no way to logically disassociate ownership of ones own self and body with ownership of other property in a “property rights” sense. In other words, there is no way to logically reject any sort of property ownership if you accept the concept of self-ownership. And of course, there is no way to justify ownership of any other property if you deny self-ownership.
So this notion of “everyone owns everything except someone else’s body” is a fallacious one. It is inconsistant.
Again, I highly recommend these links pertaining specifically to ownership, as well as the Kinsella piece linked here.
Yes it is. See above.
Logic is flawed when the reasoning proves to be illogical. I don’t know what you’re saying.
Again, see the links above.
You know that this proof is incorrect, because you know that it leads to a ridiculous result. But the trick is to figure out what exactly is wrong in the reasoning.
Thanks for the links.
I think you and JJ are talking past each other. With him, you were talking about about a right to property as “right to restrict others’ use of an item”. It is pretty close, but I believe that you phrased it better when you responded to me when you said, “In that case, it makes sense to define ownership as rightful control over an object. Restricting others’ use to it is a part of control.”
There is nothing necessarily wrong with some things being commonly owned. After all, land that is in public use is publicly owned, even in a ancap society. However, I find it hard to believe that people in the Soviet Union did not really believe in common ownership, even if they said they did. They still had things that they considered their own and no one else’s. You might say that they think the oil industry should be nationalized and owned by everyone, but how would this be done in a legal way where people actually did own it other than the Powers That Be in the USSR?
Okay, and? How is this demonstrating that people actually believe in shared ownership? Just because people think the government represents the people doesn’t make it so. This is not a society where everyone owns everything. In practice, people own their property, and then the government comes along and takes a portion of it - and not everyone has agreed to that. I don’t really see how this addresses what I said.
Give me an example of something that is jointly owned that is not under limited circumstances.
What do you mean by wrong? Can you show me how all property would be jointly owned? People have to agree to it, or it’s not really jointly owned…
How would you set up a society where everyone has agreed to live this way? How does law arise? How would it come to be that everything is owned by everyone and therefore no one? It just wouldn’t happen, not on any large scale, and the ones that try it die out. Sure, they die out for economic reasons, but so what? I have no idea if there is a good legal reason other than it’s entirely impractical. But any society that could set it up legally would still perish due to economic reasons.
Why does it matter that it be wrong legally?
Funny article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138384/Thats-roadblock-Family-refuse–new-road-constructed-AROUND-home.html
It’s true that there was private property in USSR. But that could be argued as re-allocation of common property back to the people. But even if this concerns land, what’s the difference? That seems to be the case in the US: all the lands is assumed to be owned by the State, while owners are just given rights of usage.
Presumably, all communal property is jointly owned by all society. (It’s not ownerless, since a private entity can’t just come and seize it.)
But that’s under direct control of the society. ALL the land (that’s not allodial) is owned (under control) of the society. Just like all the equipment in my lab is owned by the lab’s owners. Then the right of usage is granted to the individuals, and others individuals are prohibited from using it.
It’s a case of rights system within a rights system.
What do you mean? I am saying that instead of having a society where all people own their individual property (be it land or moveables), you can have a system where people own all land (and/or movable) collectively. And then, perhaps, reassign individual pseudo-ownership to individuals through whatever system. It could even be homesteading.
Because there is a difference between calling FDR a bad economist and a thief.
Okay, this was your question:
I’m not going to address most of your responses to me - unless you really want me to - because I don’t think they will get to the heart of your question. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by your question. I mean, the USSR “worked”. Disputes were resolved. It was just a might makes right system of resolving disputes, and the state was the one with the might. It’s the same in the US now. It’s a might makes right, and the US government and its provinces and districts are the ones with the might. Do you consider that this system works? Does the Cuban system work?
Clayton has a good post here about dual-law. It doesn’t directly address your question, but I think it will help you figure out what you are looking for.
OK, so let me ask it this way then: what is wrong from non-economic point of view with all these systems? Why shouldn’t it be might makes right? How would you explain this to a statist who believes in a “benign tyranny” of the state? Again, from moral/ethical/legal/social/etc. point of view, not economic one.
(I am reading Hoppe, btw. It may take me a while.)