Freedomain Radio

I really don't know much about mutualism at all except their explanation of property as something that is defined by use, and I'm not even sure what they mean by that. But just musing about the concept has led to a few insights about practical stateless property enforcement that I'd like to discuss. I was an absolutist when it came to property rights or a long time, particularly when I was an Objectivist and when I first started calling myself an Anarchist. But lately something occurred to me: absolutist property rights aren't enforceable. The closest you can get is some perfect state, and that itself would be light years away because a state has to steal just to survive. But apart from taxes a state can grant some a monopoly over their possessions, most notably land and water. Even if the owner makes no economic use of that land or water the costs of boot people off it are outsourced to society as a whole, which seems like a double-jip to society. For starters you're denying a resource to society that many people would like to exploit, and second you have to steal from just about everyone in order to pay for this withholding. This cannot be the case in a stateless society. In a stateless society there is no institution that can violently outsource the cost of anything, therefor in all things there must be compensation. A large landowner operating in a statist paradigm can in principle expect the state to boot anyone and everyone off his soil even if he himself has no present or past income; i.e. does or has done no work that benefits society. In practice this is almost absolutely not the case, as the state tends to protect the property of the wealthy and ignore the proles. But it seems obvious that in practice this makes property rights for the poor unnecessarily complicated if not completely unavailable, while in principle it seems equally obvious that the system is entirely unjust. 

In a stateless paradigm a man will have to defend his possessions himself if they are threatened, or he will have to pay someone else to protect them for him. He may join a land or housing covenant (DRO) that will outsource the costs somewhat, but he'll obviously still have to do his part. If he wants to own property he must do more than own it nominally he must own it practically, which is to say he must do whatever is necessary to afford to protect it. This doesn't have to mean using the property itself; if he buys a plot of land that he would like to keep pristine as a natural preserve or for his own enjoyment he'll simply have to compensate society in some other way. Perhaps he runs a store, and some of the money will go to paying rangers who will actively keep people out. If he cannot do this, or if he refuses to, I honestly hope he doesn't have the gall to cry about it when someone else wanders on to this land and begins to exploit it for their own purposes. I do not believe anyone has a right to simply posses a resource without continually compensating society for its withholding. But whether that is ethically true or not practically it is the case in a stateless paradigm. I think that's just fine, because there are lot of homeless and impoverished people who could really use a chunk or two of all the unused property, particularly land ,which the state and other owners neglect but which they feel absolutely entitled to. 

So does anyone agree? Disagree? Again, I don't know squat about mutualism. I don't follow the boards at all, I just remember it took some heat a while back. I don't know if what I'm talking about is something mutualists would support, but if it is I'm not sure I understand what all that heat was about. For all intents and purposes property = use. It's an ambiguous, working definition that may be somewhat outside ethics, but fundamentally I don't see what's wrong with it. 

I'm shaky on the "property and 'use'" and the "compensate 'society' for owning property," but I am in 100% agreement with the practical application.

Somebody could probably homestead a couple hundred square miles in a free society, but it would be almost cost prohibitive to enforce boundaries. I think, like almost everything else, this will be solved by the market process as well.

This is why I don't think it will ever be truely possible for one company to own an ocean. But it will probably be possible for a person to own a house, or a company to own an office building. I think the boundaries between reasonable and unreasonable ownership will probably be discovered by the market. Obviously managing more property costs more.

This was one of the hardest concepts for me to grasp: than justice has a price.

Justinian:

But lately something occurred to me: absolutist property rights aren't enforceable.

Not true.  Property rights will always be enforced it is just that more effective manners that might not even have been dreamed up will be used.  Either the property owner can enforce his own rights or he can contract an individual or organization that will be able to do it more efficiently.  Today many people opt for alarms and video security systems because it is more cost effective than hiring a night watchman.  So, let's say that a property owner needs security...he can make $1000 a day for every day he spends working at his core business (sales, retail, manufacturing, medical care, research, whatever). But due to theft or periodic damage he must now spend the equivalent of one day a week providing his own security.  If a company comes along and can perform the same function at a cost to him of $500 a week (one-half of one day's profits) then he would be wise to contract with them.  Even if the service is more expensive his cost of security, cutting into his core business, will rise to a price point that he will be willing to pay some higher rate since he will be losing money if he continues to provide his own security.  Similarly, competition among security providers will continually make services more efficient leading to lower prices or static prices with more services or value.  Remember that a rise in prices is a signal to the market that supply is not keeping up with demand and that a void in production needs to be filled.  Someone will always step into that void and try to cut prices in a free market.  

Justinian:

...as the state tends to protect the property of the wealthy and ignore the proles. But it seems obvious that in practice this makes property rights for the poor unnecessarily complicated if not completely unavailable, while in principle it seems equally obvious that the system is entirely unjust.

This is a problem of the state not a free market.  Poorer people will have more incentive to succeed (either the lack of a safety net or a safety net which is voluntarily implemented and makes people more accountable) and be better off in a free society.  Note that today such safety nets have morphed into livelihoods and lifestyles; indeed they are called "entitlements" today.  People will have more wealth and competition to provide high quality at low prices and it will be natural and unrelenting.  If people can provide cheaper goods and services at a lower profit margin but sell to more people (Wal-Mart) and make a profit they will.  Just as some will cater to more select clientele.  Plus, what logic is behind stealing one-third to half of someone's income to fund a safety net they do not need. Or the theft causes them to now make use of that safety net when they would have been bette off just keeping their income in the first place.   

Justinian:

In a stateless paradigm a man will have to defend his possessions himself if they are threatened, or he will have to pay someone else to protect them for him. He may join a land or housing covenant (DRO) that will outsource the costs somewhat, but he'll obviously still have to do his part. If he wants to own property he must do more than own it nominally he must own it practically, which is to say he must do whatever is necessary to afford to protect it. This doesn't have to mean using the property itself; if he buys a plot of land that he would like to keep pristine as a natural preserve or for his own enjoyment he'll simply have to compensate society in some other way.

Some may choose to defend and secure their own property or hire outside help.  It is up to that property owner and he will choose based on a cost/benefit analysis.  Also, property rights are absolute.  If a person wants to own land and keep it pristine that is his/her prerogative.  Also the withholding of a thing is not the violation of rights.  If I do not feed the poor, which is a good thing but not a universal responsibility, and someone on the street dies of hunger I am not morally responsible for that death.  If I kidnap a homeless man and stick him in my basement, do not feed that person who then starves to death then I committed murder.  Similarly if I own land and withhold its use and benefits from others then I have not abridged anyone's rights, I am merely exercising my own.  I owe no one compensation for exercising my claims.  This is true whether I occupy my own land or am an absentee owner.  Ownership can only change by my willfully ceding or trading; it is not dependent on my geographical relationship to the land. 

Justinian:

...I honestly hope he doesn't have the gall to cry about it when someone else wanders on to this land and begins to exploit it for their own purposes. I do not believe anyone has a right to simply posses a resource without continually compensating society for its withholding. But whether that is ethically true or not practically it is the case in a stateless paradigm. I think that's just fine, because there are lot of homeless and impoverished people who could really use a chunk or two of all the unused property, particularly land ,which the state and other owners neglect but which they feel absolutely entitled to.

Again, if someone owns something then they own and can do whatever they wish to it so long as it does not infringe on another's rights.  For example, if I own land and hate trees I can set fire to my land and burn everything on it.  But, if that fire escapes and damages others' property, or even if the act of burning causse smoke and soot harms someone else or their property, I am liable for that damage.  Your arguments are close to utilitarianism which means no individual has any rights but the collective does.  Owners are entitled to that land and maybe they are simply using it in a way that others would not: perhaps the owner is trying to get capital together to make use of the land in a certain way, or he is keeping it as an eco-park or nature preserve. 

Justinian:

So does anyone agree? Disagree? Again, I don't know squat about mutualism. I don't follow the boards at all, I just remember it took some heat a while back. I don't know if what I'm talking about is something mutualists would support, but if it is I'm not sure I understand what all that heat was about. For all intents and purposes property = use. It's an ambiguous, working definition that may be somewhat outside ethics, but fundamentally I don't see what's wrong with it.

Property does not equal use, property is an outcome of ownership.  You can use something but it may not belong to you.  Much as how office jobs are; your labor is bought and applied to the designated uses of your employer.  You are using your labor and the capital goods of the employer to meet his entrepreneurial goals.  He is not using your mind or body but is paying for their output thus he owns your labor within the bounds of your employment agreement.  The Wikipedia definition of mutualism strikes me as minarchism.  It holds that people have property rights but puts conditional rights on land and production ownership to where it has to benefit others besides the owner.  Rights can not be positive ("Thou shalt...), they can only be negative ("Thou shalt not...).  In mutualism it makes some property ownership conditional on positivism or utilitarianism.  In this case, the argument you put forth and that mutualism holds, is that people may only own land and means of production so long as it benefits someone else.  This starts an unending line of positive rights that compels people to forfeit something in order to make someone whole without voluntary exchange.

Cooper MacLean:

Justinian:

But lately something occurred to me: absolutist property rights aren't enforceable.

Not true.  Property rights will always be enforced it is just that more effective manners that might not even have been dreamed up will be used.  Either the property owner can enforce his own rights or he can contract an individual or organization that will be able to do it more efficiently.  Today many people opt for alarms and video security systems because it is more cost effective than hiring a night watchman.  So, let's say that a property owner needs security...he can make $1000 a day for every day he spends working at his core business (sales, retail, manufacturing, medical care, research, whatever). But due to theft or periodic damage he must now spend the equivalent of one day a week providing his own security.  If a company comes along and can perform the same function at a cost to him of $500 a week (one-half of one day's profits) then he would be wise to contract with them.  Even if the service is more expensive his cost of security, cutting into his core business, will rise to a price point that he will be willing to pay some higher rate since he will be losing money if he continues to provide his own security.  Similarly, competition among security providers will continually make services more efficient leading to lower prices or static prices with more services or value.  Remember that a rise in prices is a signal to the market that supply is not keeping up with demand and that a void in production needs to be filled.  Someone will always step into that void and try to cut prices in a free market.  

 

Justinian:

...as the state tends to protect the property of the wealthy and ignore the proles. But it seems obvious that in practice this makes property rights for the poor unnecessarily complicated if not completely unavailable, while in principle it seems equally obvious that the system is entirely unjust.

This is a problem of the state not a free market.  Poorer people will have more incentive to succeed (either the lack of a safety net or a safety net which is voluntarily implemented and makes people more accountable) and be better off in a free society.  Note that today such safety nets have morphed into livelihoods and lifestyles; indeed they are called "entitlements" today.  People will have more wealth and competition to provide high quality at low prices and it will be natural and unrelenting.  If people can provide cheaper goods and services at a lower profit margin but sell to more people (Wal-Mart) and make a profit they will.  Just as some will cater to more select clientele.  Plus, what logic is behind stealing one-third to half of someone's income to fund a safety net they do not need. Or the theft causes them to now make use of that safety net when they would have been bette off just keeping their income in the first place.   

Justinian:

In a stateless paradigm a man will have to defend his possessions himself if they are threatened, or he will have to pay someone else to protect them for him. He may join a land or housing covenant (DRO) that will outsource the costs somewhat, but he'll obviously still have to do his part. If he wants to own property he must do more than own it nominally he must own it practically, which is to say he must do whatever is necessary to afford to protect it. This doesn't have to mean using the property itself; if he buys a plot of land that he would like to keep pristine as a natural preserve or for his own enjoyment he'll simply have to compensate society in some other way.

Some may choose to defend and secure their own property or hire outside help.  It is up to that property owner and he will choose based on a cost/benefit analysis.  Also, property rights are absolute.  If a person wants to own land and keep it pristine that is his/her prerogative.  Also the withholding of a thing is not the violation of rights.  If I do not feed the poor, which is a good thing but not a universal responsibility, and someone on the street dies of hunger I am not morally responsible for that death.  If I kidnap a homeless man and stick him in my basement, do not feed that person who then starves to death then I committed murder.  Similarly if I own land and withhold its use and benefits from others then I have not abridged anyone's rights, I am merely exercising my own.  I owe no one compensation for exercising my claims.  This is true whether I occupy my own land or am an absentee owner.  Ownership can only change by my willfully ceding or trading; it is not dependent on my geographical relationship to the land. 

Justinian:

...I honestly hope he doesn't have the gall to cry about it when someone else wanders on to this land and begins to exploit it for their own purposes. I do not believe anyone has a right to simply posses a resource without continually compensating society for its withholding. But whether that is ethically true or not practically it is the case in a stateless paradigm. I think that's just fine, because there are lot of homeless and impoverished people who could really use a chunk or two of all the unused property, particularly land ,which the state and other owners neglect but which they feel absolutely entitled to.

Again, if someone owns something then they own and can do whatever they wish to it so long as it does not infringe on another's rights.  For example, if I own land and hate trees I can set fire to my land and burn everything on it.  But, if that fire escapes and damages others' property, or even if the act of burning causse smoke and soot harms someone else or their property, I am liable for that damage.  Your arguments are close to utilitarianism which means no individual has any rights but the collective does.  Owners are entitled to that land and maybe they are simply using it in a way that others would not: perhaps the owner is trying to get capital together to make use of the land in a certain way, or he is keeping it as an eco-park or nature preserve. 

Justinian:

So does anyone agree? Disagree? Again, I don't know squat about mutualism. I don't follow the boards at all, I just remember it took some heat a while back. I don't know if what I'm talking about is something mutualists would support, but if it is I'm not sure I understand what all that heat was about. For all intents and purposes property = use. It's an ambiguous, working definition that may be somewhat outside ethics, but fundamentally I don't see what's wrong with it.

Property does not equal use, property is an outcome of ownership.  You can use something but it may not belong to you.  Much as how office jobs are; your labor is bought and applied to the designated uses of your employer.  You are using your labor and the capital goods of the employer to meet his entrepreneurial goals.  He is not using your mind or body but is paying for their output thus he owns your labor within the bounds of your employment agreement.  The Wikipedia definition of mutualism strikes me as minarchism.  It holds that people have property rights but puts conditional rights on land and production ownership to where it has to benefit others besides the owner.  Rights can not be positive ("Thou shalt...), they can only be negative ("Thou shalt not...).  In mutualism it makes some property ownership conditional on positivism or utilitarianism.  In this case, the argument you put forth and that mutualism holds, is that people may only own land and means of production so long as it benefits someone else.  This starts an unending line of positive rights that compels people to forfeit something in order to make someone whole without voluntary exchange.

I think I wasn't clear. I am absolutely in favor of a total market and property rights. What I am trying to say is just nominally owning something is not the same as actually owning it. I understand the purpose of deeds and contracts, but they are not magical spells that grant one a natural monopoly over a resource. I say if you are not able or cannot afford to protect what you call your property it is NOT your property. Waving your arms and saying "this is mine" does not make it so. Procuring the agreement and good will of your neighbors goes a long way but cannot in every instance be the decisive factor. I do not use the word society as if it were a magical spell, either. I do not believe anyone owes society their time by default. And really now that I think about it what I'm talking about applies pretty much exclusively to land, air, and sea where what constitutes "the produce of your labor" has always been more difficult to establish. A good like a television can be payed for once and be thought of as compensated for. A service like cable can be payed for continually so long as it is being provided. Space in the universe is not like either of those things. Space is not the produce of anyone's labor, it was there before us. Therefore if property is produce then you must PRODUCE something on that land for it count as your property. If you cannot or will not then you must produce something elsewhere which you can either use to defend your monopoly over that space, or which you can trade for some one or some collective to protect it for you. 

I believe the withhold of space from other people without compensation is a kind of parasitism. Everyone can see the lunacy of the idea of someone claiming huge tracks of land where he has never so much as set foot and then demanding nobody else do so. If he could convince some fool to buy this land from him it'd be just as lunatic if the buyer felt entitled to the complete inviolateness of "his" land. And if this is true for large tracks why not small? The principle cannot be different merely because of scale. In all practical terms the land belongs to those who can afford to keep people off it. In a stateless paradigm that would require creating something other people value and selling it to them. That is what I mean by serving society. It is not something you should do ethically, but something you must do practically or your entire venture will be unsustainable. That is the summery.

Justinian:

absolutist property rights aren't enforceable.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't try to get close to absolutist property rights.

Justinian:

  But apart from taxes a state can grant some a monopoly over their possessions, most notably land and water.

No no no no. That is a complete abuse of the word "monopoly". "Monopoly over their possessions" is just a derogatory way of saying "property rights". Yes, the state can grant property rights, but the fact that they are doing that right now doesn't mean property rights can't exist in anarchy.

Justinian:

Even if the owner makes no economic use of that land or water the costs of boot people off it are outsourced to society as a whole, which seems like a double-jip to society. For starters you're denying a resource to society that many people would like to exploit, and second you have to steal from just about everyone in order to pay for this withholding. 

Man, there is like a thousand things wrong with this post here. A society that forces an individual to give up his/her land just because he/she doesn't use their land to society's wishes probably isn't capable of long-lasting anarchism to begin with. Second, it is a complete non sequitor that holding unused land means you must steal from society. You could be rich for example and just hire a bunch of guards. Third, even if a person couldn't hold unused land that STILL isn't a contradiction to market anarchism. All you're doing is you're pointing out is that property rights would be different in anarchism.

Justinian:

This cannot be the case in a stateless society. In a stateless society there is no institution that can violently outsource the cost of anything,

 

And no anarcho-capitalist said that there was going to be such institutions. You're just creating non-existent issues.

Justinian:

 therefor in all things there must be compensation. A large landowner operating in a statist paradigm can in principle expect the state to boot anyone and everyone off his soil even if he himself has no present or past income; i.e. does or has done no work that benefits society. In practice this is almost absolutely not the case, as the state tends to protect the property of the wealthy and ignore the proles. But it seems obvious that in practice this makes property rights for the poor unnecessarily complicated if not completely unavailable, while in principle it seems equally obvious that the system is entirely unjust. 

 

"Justice" is an opinion.

Justinian:

In a stateless paradigm a man will have to defend his possessions himself if they are threatened, or he will have to pay someone else to protect them for him. He may join a land or housing covenant (DRO) that will outsource the costs somewhat, but he'll obviously still have to do his part. If he wants to own property he must do more than own it nominally he must own it practically, which is to say he must do whatever is necessary to afford to protect it. This doesn't have to mean using the property itself; if he buys a plot of land that he would like to keep pristine as a natural preserve or for his own enjoyment he'll simply have to compensate society in some other way. Perhaps he runs a store, and some of the money will go to paying rangers who will actively keep people out. If he cannot do this, or if he refuses to, I honestly hope he doesn't have the gall to cry about it when someone else wanders on to this land and begins to exploit it for their own purposes. I do not believe anyone has a right to simply posses a resource without continually compensating society for its withholding. But whether that is ethically true or not practically it is the case in a stateless paradigm. I think that's just fine, because there are lot of homeless and impoverished people who could really use a chunk or two of all the unused property, particularly land ,which the state and other owners neglect but which they feel absolutely entitled to. 

 

Justinian:

So does anyone agree? Disagree? Again, I don't know squat about mutualism. I don't follow the boards at all, I just remember it took some heat a while back. I don't know if what I'm talking about is something mutualists would support, but if it is I'm not sure I understand what all that heat was about. For all intents and purposes property = use. It's an ambiguous, working definition that may be somewhat outside ethics, but fundamentally I don't see what's wrong with it. 

There is no such thing as property rights based on use. If I own a car and then lose ownership of the car as soon as I jump out of it or lose control of it that is exactly the same thing as NOT having property rights at all. If my property rights are only valid if I use my land according to society's standards that too is exactly the same thing as not having property rights period. You're just a tool for society.

I don't think the economic evidence points towards the argument you're trying to put forth here which I think is something like statism is property on steroids for those close to the violent hierarchy. To a degree this is true, but it would stand to evidence that in a society where 50-60% of everything isn't taxed property rights would be exponentially more enforceable than currently. I think that considering the economic wealth of a free society it wouldn't be surprising if someone bought and sold a property in Asia that they never stepped on through some sort of stock market considering how much demand there would be for the protection of property which would lower the prices to levels higher than today, and that's an example within our mindset. I know people who own property internationally and they still retain it within the statist mindset, in a voluntary environment this would probably be multiplied by virtue of simple demand, think of it, you own a house, you rent it and move to a cheaper developping part of the world and your acquisition power goes up, by any sort of use-based homestead-in-the-present squatting principle then that person would be at high risk of losing his property to his tenants, which means there would be a market to prevent it from being so. 

Justinian:

 

I think I wasn't clear. I am absolutely in favor of a total market and property rights. What I am trying to say is just nominally owning something is not the same as actually owning it. I understand the purpose of deeds and contracts, but they are not magical spells that grant one a natural monopoly over a resource. I say if you are not able or cannot afford to protect what you call your property it is NOT your property.

I think you are taking a practical or technical problem and morphing it into a perceived flaw in the philosophical or moral construct of property rights.  That is, I believe that you are holding forth that since most absentee (or even present) landowners can not 100% enforce their property rights due to prohibitive costs, at the moment, or choose not to, then it invalidates the ownership rights.

How so?  That is like saying that if for some reason I can not fight off a gang of muggers then it is proof that I did not own my wallet in the first place.  Or, if I happen to be out of my house for work, shopping, holidays, whatever, then the house and belongings are no longer "owned" until someone appropriates it.  There is not even a 100% percent system today to keep away trespassers on large tracts of land.  Just ask the Border Patrol, probably the most capable security forces on the planet how that goes; I also do not mean to construe that the Border Patrol is necessarily thwarting "trespassers", only they fulfill an analog function to what we are discussing on a grand scale and do not succeed 100%.  Most people who own large tracts of land tend to be wealthy or have become wealthy through developing land.  They put up fences, signs, hire staff to police their property, and check the state of affairs but no system to stop trespassing is 100% reliable at this point.  Just because someone is able to defeat a security measure does not invalidate the rights of the owner who installed them.  This would create a situation where people could own things simply because they were able to take them.  This would also make rape permissible since the body is the one universal property that people have rights to.  In short, it would set the precedent that if you can get away with it then it is permissible so then there would exist no rights. 

Justinian:

I believe the withhold of space from other people without compensation is a kind of parasitism. Everyone can see the lunacy of the idea of someone claiming huge tracks of land where he has never so much as set foot and then demanding nobody else do so. If he could convince some fool to buy this land from him it'd be just as lunatic if the buyer felt entitled to the complete inviolateness of "his" land.

How is it parasitism?  In a free society what you own can only be morally obtained through free trade; if he stole the land then it is not his, if he bought it and ethically got it then he can not morally be compelled to use it in a way he does not agree to.  If those people want access to the land then they will have to meet the requirements of the owner to gain that access.  Do the owner's of Rembrandts have to put them on public display because they are not providing a group benefit by keeping them in private hands?The fact that the landowner is there or not is immaterial.  Because, what if some people want to use land in a certain way that they do not own, how does the owner's geography change the morality of the compulsion or trespass?  Can not this precedent then be extended to land where the owner is present.  Again, you bring up capacity of ability to defend something as being the true measure of ownership.  If it is universally wrong to violate someone's property rights then it is universally wrong and not dependent upon owner's geography.  This is utilitarianism you are arguing, which asserts rights as non-existent and that an action's perceived benefit is the only measure of it's moral qualities.  Following your logic, the only people who could rightfully own anything are those who can violently take and hold onto it against all challengers.  In this case there would be no rights and stealing would become the universally preferable behavior.   

Justinian:

 And if this is true for large tracks why not small? The principle cannot be different merely because of scale. In all practical terms the land belongs to those who can afford to keep people off it. In a stateless paradigm that would require creating something other people value and selling it to them. That is what I mean by serving society. It is not something you should do ethically, but something you must do practically or your entire venture will be unsustainable. That is the summery.

I think you are beginning to see the problems with your logic here and admit it.  Yes, keeping the hikers and campers out of hundreds of acres of privately-owned pristine forest is quite a bit more challenging than keeping burglars from breaking into a typical residence.  But in your previous excerpts you were claiming an exception due to ability, that is if you can not somehow keep trespassers off you property then you do not own it.  At least you accept that according to your logic there is no difference in this principle due to size of property; i.e. following your logic, if Robert Redford can not keep people off Sundance, his mutli-thousand acre resort, then he does not own it just as a person who can not prevent a burglar from breaking in does no own their domicile.  Just because a moral concept can be violated does not mean that the moral concept is invalid. In fact, I would argue that violations tend to act as evidence that shows the opposite behavior is the normal, more preferable behavior. 

The second part I agree with you.  People have to do something moral to amass wealth and acquire and maintain their property.  But, once they morally acquire property what they do with it is their business as long as it violates no one else's rights.  It is true that most people with economic sense would want to make their property economically productive or at least self-sufficient but that is not a moral requirement, only a question of preference and relative prudence.  If they can't make it work and sustain anything then take heart, they will probably have to sell it to someone who can at a later date.  

Wow, I cannot believe the assumptions people are making. It's as if they think I'm arguing against market anarchy when I'm not. Guys, the PROBLEMS I outline concern the STATE, and all I am proposing is that the absolutist nominal ownership of SPACE is perversion of the idea of property rights. I am saying one cannot simply claim land, air, and sea and have it be yours. If I allowed for too much ambiguity to start with that is my fault, and I absolutely retract anything that would give the opinion that this applies to property besides space. You own the produce of your labor, absolutely; nobody can justly take it from you, and YOU are the produce of your own labor, naturally. My insight was that SPACE is not the produce of anyone's labor. SPACE existed before labor. Therefore space is of no value until it is somehow made use of, and it follows that it ceases to be valuable to some extent when it is no longer made use of. USE is a fuzzy term, but I honestly don't see the need to define it very rigidly. If one can honestly provide for spatial property, it's yours I say. You don't have to actually use the property itself for anything specific. If you just want to possess it, you need to pay to keep it, because you have denied it to people who also want to posses it and who might have otherwise made some productive use of it.

This does NOT leave us open to the possibility that might will make right when it comes to spatial property, because of course the non-aggression principle is still in effect. If your need to hurt or threaten people to vacate property, obviously you're violating it. See, I'm not being so far out!  

 I agree you can't just CLAIM land and then therefore own it The entire point of my response was a society has to be a little tolerant about how property owners use or not use their property if they want to claim to be an anarchist society. If I lose property rights just as soon as I do something that the society doesn't like that would be exactly the same thing as not having property rights to begin with. It would just be majority absolutism, and not anarchy.