Theory of property

[an anarchist]

If you are politically/economically inclined, what theory of property do you ascribe to? A theory of property is necessary for a political theory. The purpose of property rights is conflict avoidance. There are scarce resources in the world, and conflicts between man is born out of competing demands for scarce resources.
I ascribe to the Libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist theory of property i.e. private property ethic.
The private property theory states that there are only two ways to legitimately attain property.
1. Voluntary exchange.
This is necessarily conflict free. Party A and Party B are in a transaction. Party A has object X which they would like to trade for object Y, which Party B is in possession of. Likewise, Party B would like to exchange Y for X. It is an axiom that both parties have reverse preferences, i.e. they value their objects differently. A values Y over X and B values X over Y. It is an axiom because the voluntary exchange would not be taking place at all if their preferences weren’t reversed.
2. Original appropriation
I suppose this is where most people would disagree on whether this is conflict free or not.
Ancap theory stipulates that this is necessarily conflict free. Original appropriation works like this; first come first serve. It stipulates that no one has claim to resources that they have not mixed their labor with. A tree, for example, is not owned by anybody. Once someone mixes his labor into the tree, however, it becomes his private property. If a woodsman were to chop down the tree and turn it into lumber, that lumber would be rightfully his.
The reason why this is conflict free is because no one has legitimate claims over natural resources that they have not mixed their labor with. This is where socialists would disagree I assume.

Through these two methods (voluntary exchange and original appropriation), competing claims for resources would be eliminated, supposedly. That is the point of contention, yes?
I am a novice political and economic theorist. I ascribe to the Austrian school of economics. No formal education, just some books and the web. So help educate me through debate. I am quite sure I am the only ancap and true believer of the free market on this site. Lot of ya call yourself socialists.
So, what is your theory of property, and how does it work to avoid conflict?

 

[exchemist]

If you are politically/economically inclined, what theory of property do you ascribe to? A theory of property is necessary for a political theory. The purpose of property rights is conflict avoidance. There are scarce resources in the world, and conflicts between man is born out of competing demands for scarce resources.
I ascribe to the Libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist theory of property i.e. private property ethic.
The private property theory states that there are only two ways to legitimately attain property.
1. Voluntary exchange.
This is necessarily conflict free. Party A and Party B are in a transaction. Party A has object X which they would like to trade for object Y, which Party B is in possession of. Likewise, Party B would like to exchange Y for X. It is an axiom that both parties have reverse preferences, i.e. they value their objects differently. A values Y over X and B values X over Y. It is an axiom because the voluntary exchange would not be taking place at all if their preferences weren’t reversed.
2. Original appropriation
I suppose this is where most people would disagree on whether this is conflict free or not.
Ancap theory stipulates that this is necessarily conflict free. Original appropriation works like this; first come first serve. It stipulates that no one has claim to resources that they have not mixed their labor with. A tree, for example, is not owned by anybody. Once someone mixes his labor into the tree, however, it becomes his private property. If a woodsman were to chop down the tree and turn it into lumber, that lumber would be rightfully his.
The reason why this is conflict free is because no one has legitimate claims over natural resources that they have not mixed their labor with. This is where socialists would disagree I assume.

Through these two methods (voluntary exchange and original appropriation), competing claims for resources would be eliminated, supposedly. That is the point of contention, yes?
I am a novice political and economic theorist. I ascribe to the Austrian school of economics. No formal education, just some books and the web. So help educate me through debate. I am quite sure I am the only ancap and true believer of the free market on this site. Lot of ya call yourself socialists.
So, what is your theory of property, and how does it work to avoid conflict?

When you've bought it or been given it freely, it's yours. But some things are not for sale or gift. Those exceptions are decided by elected representatives of the people.

And, er, that's it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, what is your theory of property, and how does it work to avoid conflict?

Some conflict is necessary to avoid greater conflict. Land ownership is, by human nature, always a conflict. We manage that conflict which arises out of human nature.

But conflict is not the only consideration. Another consideration is that land sometimes must be maintained. If someone leaves land in a bad way they are more likely to lose it, because people hate to see land that we desire but we hate even more to see it going to waste. We imagine uses for it and think of how much better a job we would do.

 

[The Hammer]

I believe in Usufruct rights.

"Usufruct is the right to use and benefit from a property, while the ownership of which belongs to another person. The person who enjoys the usufruct is called the usufructuary."

 

[an anarchist]

Some conflict is necessary to avoid greater conflict. Land ownership is, by human nature, always a conflict. We manage that conflict which arises out of human nature.

But conflict is not the only consideration. Another consideration is that land sometimes must be maintained. If someone leaves land in a bad way they are more likely to lose it, because people hate to see land that we desire but we hate even more to see it going to waste. We imagine uses for it and think of how much better a job we would do.

Hmm.
Alright so let’s say the private property ethic has been implemented.
Joe has a sizeable piece of farmland, but refuses to do anything with it. In all likelihood some entrepreneur would approach Joe and offer a voluntary exchange for his farmland.
But first off, how did Joe get the farmland in the first place? Through original appropriation. So some labor would have to have been mixed into the land initially for Joe’s claim to stand.
Let’s say Joe is a crappy farmer, and he can’t make profit off of his efforts. Again, it would be likely for Joe to accept a buyout for his land.
So I agree with you, Joe would likely lose his land, but in a peaceful voluntary manner. I don’t think conflict is necessary in a society based off of voluntary exchanges.
To be honest I read through your reply several times and I don’t think I understand completely what you are getting at, so sorry if my reply doesn’t really answer your reply.

 

[an anarchist]

I believe in Usufruct rights.

"Usufruct is the right to use and benefit from a property, while the ownership of which belongs to another person. The person who enjoys the usufruct is called the usufructuary."

Well, as long as the usufructuary is there under the voluntary agreement of the owner, I see no problem with Usufruct rights.

 

[The Hammer]

Well, as long as the usufructuary is there under the voluntary agreement of the owner, I see no problem with Usufruct rights.

Sometimes, usufructuary rights are more widespread too (all-encompassing).


IE on an island everyone has access to utilize all of the land, but you personally are given a plot to care for yourself. But you can't bar others from "trespassing".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What happens to property if a person refuses to pay taxes on it? How does that fit into your idea and how would it be resolved?

 

[metis]

So, what is your theory of property, and how does it work to avoid conflict?

So much depends on the society one lives in. As an example, the Amerindians generally had a much different concept of property than the Europeans that came here.

 

[an anarchist]

What happens to property if a person refuses to pay taxes on it? How does that fit into your idea and how would it be resolved?

Oof. Well I think taxation is theft lol in ancapistan there is no government to do the unjust taxing. That's a whole other discussion though.
But alright let's say someone has a contract to pay a monthly mortgage on a property to the seller. If the buyer falls behind on payments, the seller would be within his right to reacquire his property for breach of contract.
Rules still exist in ancapistan, they are just privatized. Wrap your head around that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oof. Well I think taxation is theft lol in ancapistan there is no government to do the unjust taxing. That's a whole other discussion though.
But alright let's say someone has a contract to pay a monthly mortgage on a property to the seller. If the buyer falls behind on payments, the seller would be within his right to reacquire his property for breach of contract.
Rules still exist in ancapistan, they are just privatized. Wrap your head around that!

.Then ancapistan is a mere pipedream.

There are times that the government i smore efficient than private enterprise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oof. Well I think taxation is theft lol in ancapistan there is no government to do the unjust taxing. That's a whole other discussion though.
But alright let's say someone has a contract to pay a monthly mortgage on a property to the seller. If the buyer falls behind on payments, the seller would be within his right to reacquire his property for breach of contract.
Rules still exist in ancapistan, they are just privatized. Wrap your head around that!

What does 'within his rights' mean, though? How are his rights upheld? What actions are permissable to press rights in the sort of conflict avoidant scenarios the OP suggests?

 

[an anarchist]

Then ancapistan is a mere pipedream.

It is much more than a pipedream. Starting with the onset of Austrian economics in the late 1800's, the economics of ancapistan has been thoroughly theorized and developed. All of the fine details of how each part of the economy and society would work has been theorized. I'm not educated enough to completely educate you on how this would work, but the basis of ancap theory is praxeology. Through Praxeology, the economics of ancapistan has been modeled. An ambitious dream, maybe, but not a pipe dream.
I'll tell you what is a pipe dream; believing the state has your best interests in mind.

 

[an anarchist]

What does 'within his rights' mean, though? How are his rights upheld? What actions are permissable to press rights in the sort of conflict avoidant scenarios the OP suggests?

Well, perhaps in the contract that both the buyer and seller agree too, there is a stipulation that an agreed third party (defense insurance agency, private police pretty much) will have the right to remove the seller from the premises in case of breach of contract. Rights would be upheld by various competing DIA's and contracts in a privatized society.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, perhaps in the contract that both the buyer and seller agree too, there is a stipulation that an agreed third party (defense insurance agency, private police pretty much) will have the right to remove the seller from the premises in case of breach of contract. Rights would be upheld by various competing DIA's and contracts in a privatized society.

Contract law is pretty subjective and complex. Don't you envisage a lot of situations where both parties see themselves in the right? Would this require an independent arbitrator? If so, aren't you effectively introducing a 'state'? How would such a mechanism be funded?

 

[an anarchist]

Contract law is pretty subjective and complex. Don't you envisage a lot of situations where both parties see themselves in the right? Would this require an independent arbitrator? If so, aren't you effectively introducing a 'state'? How would such a mechanism be funded?

There would be competing arbiters that would serve as third parties. Currently, the state holds a monopoly on all those type of services, and the state teaches that the state is necessary for these services i.e. judges/courts/police.
The signers of the contract can agree on which third party would be an arbiter in the case of contract breach before hand. This arbiter may be a private judge or it may be a defense insurance agency. These private actors selling legal services in a free market would have incentive to apply society's standard accepted justice, or else they will lose future customers. In a free market environment, in which it is theorized wealth would be more readily available for everyone, the private businesses that conduct arbitrations would be funded by their customers. Note, they can't force people to use their services as the State currently does. The State acquires it's funds through legalized robbery, and then it implements victimless crime laws. In a free market society where law would be allowed to spontaneously form around the preferences of society, competing arbiters would have to implement legal standards that are acceptable to their clientele.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There would be competing arbiters that would serve as third parties. Currently, the state holds a monopoly on all those type of services, and the state teaches that the state is necessary for these services i.e. judges/courts/police.
The signers of the contract can agree on which third party would be an arbiter in the case of contract breach before hand. This arbiter may be a private judge or it may be a defense insurance agency. These private actors selling legal services in a free market would have incentive to apply society's standard accepted justice, or else they will lose future customers. In a free market environment, in which it is theorized wealth would be more readily available for everyone, the private businesses that conduct arbitrations would be funded by their customers. Note, they can't force people to use their services as the State currently does. The State acquires it's funds through legalized robbery, and then it implements victimless crime laws. In a free market society where law would be allowed to spontaneously form around the preferences of society, competing arbiters would have to implement legal standards that are acceptable to their clientele.

Why do you think wealth would be more readily available for everyone? In my experience, unregulated markets often result in consolidation of wealth in the hands of key players.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All property is theft.

 

[an anarchist]

Why do you think wealth would be more readily available for everyone? In my experience, unregulated markets often result in consolidation of wealth in the hands of key players.

My simple understanding is this. For there to be a true free market, at least from an anarcho-capitalist pov, there needs to be no state. What is state? State is a predatory organization that preys on the free market for it's survival. Without the State, the free market is free to flourish naturally and spontaneously. No regulations or taxes implemented by a central planner will be constricting the free market. Wealth will be created. Of course this is all theoretical as all things ancap are, as it is impossible to predict how a true free market would look like, due to it's spontaneous nature.
An ancap believes in the great power of the free market more than anybody I think.