Freedomain Radio

Establishing the validity of the Social Contract

 

It is sometimes said that all right are property rights stemming from the ownership of one's own body. From ownership of one's body and therefore labour, the homestead principle is derived. 

In Anarchist-Capitalist circles the Homestead principle is well regarded and used as support for perpetual land ownership. 

It is also accepted in An-Cap circles that the Social contract is invalid, but it isn't rally that hard to justify the social contract using the concept of perpetual land ownership as the justification.

If on one hand the “mixing of labour” (a transitory event) permanently changes the nature of land and all succeeding individuals are bound by that, then why is it not possible in a general societal sense to say the same.

Rephrased the Homesteading principle could be expressed as “You have no right to use this land or these resources as I have previously claimed them”, the social contract “You have no right to protest about or change the current allocation of resources as the rules are well established”. Not dissimilar  when stated in that way. 

Not only are they not dissimilar in function but the perpetual homesteading principle can be used to support the social contract and therefore the state once a few facts are added to the mix. In all countries that I know about the government is used as the repository and arbiter of title to land, simply said this means that the State determines who is practically able to use the land in question. In principle there is nothing wrong with this relationship and if you add the concept of perpetual land ownership via homesteading you have a reason for the existence of states. If a homesteader can determine the current and future use of their land then if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state. As time passes and the current owners surrender more of their “ownership privileges” to the state there is no sound justification for opposing this. And so the unlimited state and the social contract stem from the unlimited and perpetual ownership of land.

So if you derive a  concept of perpetual ownership of land from the principle of homesteading, then you are bound by your own logic to accept the state.

MarkIX:

 

So if you derive a  concept of perpetual ownership of land from the principle of homesteading, then you are bound by your own logic to accept the state.

 

That's a remarkable and clear way of explaining it.  It's one reason why the principle of homesteading makes little sense, even as a pragmatic endeavor.  And morally, one is employing use of force to impose contractual terms on parties who never signed up.  The rules as to who qualifies as a "future inheritor", if not devised by the state, are devised by individual owners.  The outsider party who currently lacks contractual obligation can step in easily with their own homesteading rules in hand.  A person always distinguishes between land that is abandoned, and land that is unoccupied but still owned.  The homesteader says basically that whoever was there most recently or with most residential urine on the rug, has a right to reclaim with force.

 

MarkIX:

 

Establishing the validity of the Social Contract

 

It is sometimes said that all right are property rights stemming from the ownership of one's own body. From ownership of one's body and therefore labour, the homestead principle is derived. 

In Anarchist-Capitalist circles the Homestead principle is well regarded and used as support for perpetual land ownership. 

It is also accepted in An-Cap circles that the Social contract is invalid, but it isn't rally that hard to justify the social contract using the concept of perpetual land ownership as the justification.

If on one hand the “mixing of labour” (a transitory event) permanently changes the nature of land and all succeeding individuals are bound by that, then why is it not possible in a general societal sense to say the same.

Rephrased the Homesteading principle could be expressed as “You have no right to use this land or these resources as I have previously claimed them”, the social contract “You have no right to protest about or change the current allocation of resources as the rules are well established”. Not dissimilar  when stated in that way. 

Not only are they not dissimilar in function but the perpetual homesteading principle can be used to support the social contract and therefore the state once a few facts are added to the mix. In all countries that I know about the government is used as the repository and arbiter of title to land, simply said this means that the State determines who is practically able to use the land in question. In principle there is nothing wrong with this relationship and if you add the concept of perpetual land ownership via homesteading you have a reason for the existence of states. If a homesteader can determine the current and future use of their land then if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state. As time passes and the current owners surrender more of their “ownership privileges” to the state there is no sound justification for opposing this. And so the unlimited state and the social contract stem from the unlimited and perpetual ownership of land.

So if you derive a  concept of perpetual ownership of land from the principle of homesteading, then you are bound by your own logic to accept the state.

 

The state doesn't actually exist, it's just individual people that we label "the state". The state can't determine anything. Perhaps you could make an argument showing the same principle without giving certain individuals the label, but I don't think it's possible.

Kawlinz:

The state doesn't actually exist, it's just individual people that we label "the state". The state can't determine anything. Perhaps you could make an argument showing the same principle without giving certain individuals the label, but I don't think it's possible.

MarkIX:

if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state

The state doesn't exist in exactly the same way perpetual land ownership doesn't exist. If a homesteader can determine that no one can "own" the land without accepting the agreement with a third party then an organisation consisting of individuals that is that third party must exist to fulfil that obligation. Just as some can inherit the perpetual land ownership so others can inherit the other side of the agreement and assume the mantle of the state.

 

MarkIX:

 

Establishing the validity of the Social Contract

 

It is sometimes said that all right are property rights stemming from the ownership of one's own body. From ownership of one's body and therefore labour, the homestead principle is derived. 

In Anarchist-Capitalist circles the Homestead principle is well regarded and used as support for perpetual land ownership. 

It is also accepted in An-Cap circles that the Social contract is invalid, but it isn't rally that hard to justify the social contract using the concept of perpetual land ownership as the justification.

If on one hand the “mixing of labour” (a transitory event) permanently changes the nature of land and all succeeding individuals are bound by that, then why is it not possible in a general societal sense to say the same.

Rephrased the Homesteading principle could be expressed as “You have no right to use this land or these resources as I have previously claimed them”, the social contract “You have no right to protest about or change the current allocation of resources as the rules are well established”. Not dissimilar  when stated in that way. 

Not only are they not dissimilar in function but the perpetual homesteading principle can be used to support the social contract and therefore the state once a few facts are added to the mix. In all countries that I know about the government is used as the repository and arbiter of title to land, simply said this means that the State determines who is practically able to use the land in question. In principle there is nothing wrong with this relationship and if you add the concept of perpetual land ownership via homesteading you have a reason for the existence of states. If a homesteader can determine the current and future use of their land then if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state. As time passes and the current owners surrender more of their “ownership privileges” to the state there is no sound justification for opposing this. And so the unlimited state and the social contract stem from the unlimited and perpetual ownership of land.

So if you derive a  concept of perpetual ownership of land from the principle of homesteading, then you are bound by your own logic to accept the state.

 

Finally someone gets it. Statism is the same thing as the arbitrary "objective" establishment of the right to property through the magical voodoo dance called homesteading as supported by most an-caps.

Property can only validly come about in an even remotely valid sense through some sort of mutually accepted social contract.

(This is why most "left" anarchists do not consider an-caps to actually be anarchists by the way)

 

 

MarkIX:

Kawlinz:

The state doesn't actually exist, it's just individual people that we label "the state". The state can't determine anything. Perhaps you could make an argument showing the same principle without giving certain individuals the label, but I don't think it's possible.

MarkIX:

if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state

The state doesn't exist in exactly the same way perpetual land ownership doesn't exist. If a homesteader can determine that no one can "own" the land without accepting the agreement with a third party then an organisation consisting of individuals that is that third party must exist to fulfil that obligation. Just as some can inherit the perpetual land ownership so others can inherit the other side of the agreement and assume the mantle of the state.

 

Where does this third party come in? Sure, some homesteaders may prefer to use a third party to manage the sale or something like that of the land, but that's not required.

Left-libertarians actually believe in private property and capitalism; they simply refer to those concepts differently. This allows them to enjoy the benefits accorded by private property and capitalism while criticising others for it.

Neat, huh.

Alan Chapman:

Left-libertarians actually believe in private property and capitalism; they simply refer to those concepts differently. This allows them to enjoy the benefits accorded by private property and capitalism while criticising others for it.

Neat, huh.

I am not sure what you mean by left libertarian, but when I say the word I mean anarcho-syndaclists, mutualists and libertarian socialists.

The difference between an-caps and an-synds mutualists and lib socs is that an-caps believe that the right to property can be established essentially in a vacuum through some magical "objectively valid" act called homesteading. The latter group believe that the right to property can only be validly established through mutual contract or mutually agreed upon social norms.

So I suppose it matters what you mean by capitalism. When you say private property and capitalism do you mean the establishment of the right to property devoid of any mutually agreed upon social norms? Or do you mean the possibility of private property arising out of a mutually agreed upon contract? "Left Libertarians" vehemently oppose the former because it is a blatant violation of the non aggression principle, but accept the latter as being in keeping with the non aggression principle.

(This is why the quotes "Property is theft", "Property is impossible", "Property is despotism" and "Property is freedom" of Proudhon make perfect sense. You simply must understand the ways in which the property is established to determine which category it falls under. The usual An-Cap version homesteading falls under the despotism and theft category by the way)

Dissilusionist:

Property can only validly come about in an even remotely valid sense through some sort of mutually accepted social contract.

How does this work? Can you give an example please? I'm not sure what you mean so I'll guess:

Let's say a bunch of people who associate together, call them a society, find some unoccupied place. They camp there a long time and no one comes to claim. Therefore they agree amongst themselves who can use what parts of the land and what they can do with what they have. Is that it? What happens when some other people come onto this land who were not party to the original social contract? Do they have no rights, does everything have to be renegotiated? What if the original owners say no to the late-comers, are they then entitled to use force? 

Kawlinz:

Where does this third party come in? Sure, some homesteaders may prefer to use a third party to manage the sale or something like that of the land, but that's not required.

 

The third party comes in to "defend" the "property rights" of the Homesteader by registration and arbitration. If the Homesteader makes acceptance of that third party's "defence" a condition of sale then no one owning that property from then on has the right to reject the role of that third party. In addition the role of the third party are going to accumulate over time and all future "property owners" are going to be bound by the enlarged role as it is going to be a condition of sale/use.

Alan Chapman:

Left-libertarians actually believe in private property and capitalism; they simply refer to those concepts differently. This allows them to enjoy the benefits accorded by private property and capitalism while criticising others for it.

Neat, huh.

In this thread I'm talking soley about the effect perpetual land ownership has, it is not about whether private property is valid. It is not even about whether homesteading is valid it is merely a description of the consequences as I see them.

SimonF:

How does this work? Can you give an example please? I'm not sure what you mean so I'll guess:

Let's say a bunch of people who associate together, call them a society, find some unoccupied place. They camp there a long time and no one comes to claim. Therefore they agree amongst themselves who can use what parts of the land and what they can do with what they have. Is that it? What happens when some other people come onto this land who were not party to the original social contract? Do they have no rights, does everything have to be renegotiated? What if the original owners say no to the late-comers, are they then entitled to use force? 

This example is incomplete, what are these newcomers trying to achieve?

 

 

Dissilusionist:

...an-caps believe that the right to property can be established essentially in a vacuum through some magical "objectively valid" act called homesteading. The latter group believe that the right to property can only be validly established through mutual contract or mutually agreed upon social norms.

I consider myself AnCap, and can only speak for myself.

I've previously argued that homesteading doesn't establish rights; a person's actions do.

Social norms commit the fallacy of ad populum by confusing popularity with correctness. The problem in trying to establish rights via social norms is that it attempts to derive moral legitimacy through consensus rather than demonstrated preference and internal consistency. History (as well as the present) is replete with examples of social norms resulting in gross abuses, injustices, and catastrophes.

Dissilusionist:

...I suppose it matters what you mean by capitalism. When you say private property and capitalism do you mean the establishment of the right to property devoid of any mutually agreed upon social norms? Or do you mean the possibility of private property arising out of a mutually agreed upon contract? "Left Libertarians" vehemently oppose the former because it is a blatant violation of the non aggression principle, but accept the latter as being in keeping with the non aggression principle.

By private property, I mean property acquired through production or exchange to which the owner may retain exclusive use.

By capitalism, I mean the order of production as explicated by Austrian economics. Capitalism necessarily depends upon private property.

From my observation, left-libertarianism wants to replace oligarchy with ochlocracy; or simply to invert the pyramid.

How is a person violating the non-aggression principle by building a house in the woods without first asking others for permission?

What is the difference between mutualism or libertarian-socialism and social democracy?

MarkIX:

Kawlinz:

Where does this third party come in? Sure, some homesteaders may prefer to use a third party to manage the sale or something like that of the land, but that's not required.

The third party comes in to "defend" the "property rights" of the Homesteader by registration and arbitration. If the Homesteader makes acceptance of that third party's "defence" a condition of sale then no one owning that property from then on has the right to reject the role of that third party. In addition the role of the third party are going to accumulate over time and all future "property owners" are going to be bound by the enlarged role as it is going to be a condition of sale/use.

 

 

Let's say I sold you a comb, but attached the condition that once a year you had to get it restored at "Guy's Comb Restoration" and that you could never cancel this condition. It would be most sensible that we have a clause for what happens to the comb if you fail to get it restored. Does it go back to me? Does Guy get the comb? Or do you get to keep it? Conditional sales should have provisions in them to account for if the condition gets broken. Without that, of course there will be confusion as to who owns the property.

Alan Chapman:

 

I consider myself AnCap, and can only speak for myself.

I've previously argued that homesteading doesn't establish rights; a person's actions do.

It seems that I am misunderstanding you, coulkd you ansewr these two questions to help me get a better idea of what you mean.

How is homesteading not a persons actions?

What actions specifically establish property rights?

By private property, I mean property acquired through production or exchange to which the owner may retain exclusive use.

Does that include land, the subject of this thread which by definition can't be produced?

By capitalism, I mean the order of production as explicated by Austrian economics. Capitalism necessarily depends upon private property.

From my observation, left-libertarianism wants to replace oligarchy with ochlocracy; or simply to invert the pyramid.

I presume you are labeling me and the sentiments put forth in this thread as left-libetarian, but what does that claim reflect in regards to my and their truthiness :)?

How is a person violating the non-aggression principle by building a house in the woods without first asking others for permission?

 

What if the woods are the hunting grounds of a semi nomadic people? The house builder will have an effect on the game in the region that will extend well beyond the land he uses directly interfereing with their food supply.

What is the difference between mutualism or libertarian-socialism and social democracy?

The form and effect of the governance involved.

Kawlinz:

Let's say I sold you a comb, but attached the condition that once a year you had to get it restored at "Guy's Comb Restoration" and that you could never cancel this condition. It would be most sensible that we have a clause for what happens to the comb if you fail to get it restored. Does it go back to me? Does Guy get the comb? Or do you get to keep it? Conditional sales should have provisions in them to account for if the condition gets broken. Without that, of course there will be confusion as to who owns the property.

Well we aren't talking about combs but let's say we were, in the situation I describe the Third party that registers and arbritrates the property claims would simply refuse to protect my right to the comb, it could go further than that because they could claim that since a comb has to be perpetually owned and that I was not the owner having failed the ownership requirements that any use I made of the comb was unjustifed and therefore they are required to prevent me from doing so. If homesteading confers perpetual rights then after homesteading combs can't be unowned, if I have demostrably voided my obligations as an owner I can't own the comb and it can't be unowned as I might then attempt to re-homestead the comb which would be in direct conflict with the original homesteaders perpetual claim. The situation of perpetual claims requires a third party to arbitrate them and makes the arbitration perpetually binding on all owners/users. 

MarkIX:

 

Establishing the validity of the Social Contract

 

It is sometimes said that all right are property rights stemming from the ownership of one's own body. From ownership of one's body and therefore labour, the homestead principle is derived. 

In Anarchist-Capitalist circles the Homestead principle is well regarded and used as support for perpetual land ownership. 

It is also accepted in An-Cap circles that the Social contract is invalid, but it isn't rally that hard to justify the social contract using the concept of perpetual land ownership as the justification.

If on one hand the “mixing of labour” (a transitory event) permanently changes the nature of land and all succeeding individuals are bound by that, then why is it not possible in a general societal sense to say the same.

  The "mixing of labor" permanently changes the nature of the land, both physically and morally.  It is impossible to use land that has had labor mixed with it without also using the labor that was mixed, so you can't use the land.  The "social contract" doesn't change anything.  Simply stating that A and B agree to deny C something doesn't change the fact that C is not obligated.  That the "social contract" might have been longstanding doesn't make it any more valid.  In fact if it predates the birth of C it is less valid since he didn't have even the opportunity to consent.

MarkIX:

Rephrased the Homesteading principle could be expressed as “You have no right to use this land or these resources as I have previously claimed them”,

  Nope, that's not what the Homesteading principle says.  It says "You have no right to use the products of my labor, including this mixture of land and labor.".   

 

MarkIX:

 the social contract “You have no right to protest about or change the current allocation of resources as the rules are well established”. Not dissimilar  when stated in that way. 

Not only are they not dissimilar in function

sets

  They are very dissimilar in function.  The homesteading principle allows the creator of wealth to retain ownership of it, the "social contract" sets rules for it's confiscation.  Homesteading allows for polycentric law, the social contract bans it. 

MarkIX:

 but the perpetual homesteading principle can be used to support the social contract and therefore the state once a few facts are added to the mix. In all countries that I know about the government is used as the repository and arbiter of title to land, simply said this means that the State determines who is practically able to use the land in question.

  And in all of those the State was established in contravention of the homesteading principle.  A state might be legitimate if it was composed of land legitimately acquired through the homestead principle, but such "immaculate conception of the state" has never happened.

MarkIX:

 In principle there is nothing wrong with this relationship and if you add the concept of perpetual land ownership via homesteading you have a reason for the existence of states. If a homesteader can determine the current and future use of their land then if the homesteader enters into an agreement with a third party to protect that land and determines that all future inheritors can only own the land if they accept that agreement then you have the justification for a kind of state. As time passes and the current owners surrender more of their “ownership privileges” to the state there is no sound justification for opposing this. And so the unlimited state and the social contract stem from the unlimited and perpetual ownership of land.

So if you derive a  concept of perpetual ownership of land from the principle of homesteading, then you are bound by your own logic to accept the state.

 

  Only in this fairy tale where people voluntarily chose the state to protect them.