Anarchy does not mean no State. It means no rulers over you. Taking away a State does not mean that there would be no one who would rule over you. In fact, the State exists because the other parties that vie to rule over you have lost the public bidding. If you want a competitor to the current State, you can set one up right now. However, the rules of the current State will demolish that competitor you have immediately. A State is a monopoly of force on a given territory.
Therefore, it all boils down to territory and its monopolization and this is where justice comes into play in gaining back liberty. If you can only monopolize a territory subject to the condition that you compensate those whom you exclude, then there will be no real rulers. It would be a competition of rulers on who can make as much productive use of the land. This principle can be consistently used on differents scales, from a square meter of land to a nation.
Georgism is the closest you can get to a true anarchy.
Systematic Libertarianism I
Systematic Libertarianism I
- Definition. A libertarian is one who seeks the maximum liberty possible for all.
- Postulate 1. A libertarian holds that life and liberty, in that order, are of utmost importance.
- Discussion. Life is immaterial. It is a process. One can have life without liberty. However, one cannot have liberty without life. Life is therefore more fundamental. The order of importance is therefore life then liberty.
- Postulate 2. Liberty makes no preferences over individuals.
- Discussion. There are no special classes of people. Everyone is deserving of the same degree of liberty.
- Theorem. Violations of Postulates 1 and 2 are inconsistent with libertarianism.
- Explanation. To end life and to curtail liberty are violations. To offer liberty to some but not another given all things the same is a violation.
- Definition. Property is a thing in possession kept without aggression.
- Theorem. Property is a derived concept.
- Explanation. One can have life without property. One can have liberty without property. Therefore, property only follows from life and liberty.
- Example. Livestock do not own themselves.
- Definition. Land is natural resources.
- Definition. Natural resources is ultimately nature itself.
- Discussion. Nature includes matter, space, energy, frequency spectra, etc.
- Discussion. All living things merely borrow from nature from the composition of their bodies to the space they occupy.
- Definition. Property is taking possession of nature.
- Discussion. Property is taking portions of nature and treating it as if owned. Property is only by appropriation. Frequently, treating it as if owned is stated as merely "owned."
- Definition. Labor is work performed by or directed by human life.
- Discussion. One owning any part of nature is a violation of others access to that same part of nature, be it an atom of air, or a continent, or a planet. Property is therefore immediately a violation of Postulates 1 and 2. What makes the violation tolerable is when the violation is negligible. This is what John Locke describes as "enough and as good." Thus, one owning the C, H, and O atoms in their body is tolerable because there is enough C, H, and O atoms around in nature for others to have.
- Theorem. Violation of Postulates 1 and 2 is measured by the market rent.
- Discussion. How much is one willing to pay to have the C, H and O atoms of another person? This is the rent. Apparently, the answer is not much since these atoms, in arbitrary form, are abundantly available elsewhere.
- Discussion. How about precious metals such as gold? Does ownership of it impede another's access to life and therefore liberty? Definitely, not life. And for the most part it does not impede liberty, for there is enough gold in the ground for one to concentrate given enough labor. If one however is taking more concentrated gold ore out of the ground and making it unavailable for others, there is good justification for severance fees or royalties.
- Theorem. Self-ownership is a derived concept.
- Explanation. Ones owning of his or her body is of negligible violation to the life and liberty of others.
- Discussion. Because this is almost always the case, self-ownership is taken as a self-evident truth and treated as a postulate.
- Discussion. When LVT is talked about, it is usually in reference to the value of geographic space.
The Ownership of Labor
I had an interesting conversation with someone in a libertarian internet group yesterday. We were having a debate on the ownership of labor. My antagonist was arguing that labor cannot be owned by anyone. The argument goes somewhat as follows: "labor is an action and actions cannot be owned or else the owner has sole right to exclude others from that action." On a cursory consideration, this assertion seems to makes sense. If Sam does indeed own "singing," then he can assert his ownership rights to the action of singing. He can stop others from singing. He could ask for licenses for singing. He'll be a very rich human being!
How popular this kind of argument is, or if any of the big-name libertarian writers advocate for this thought process, I could not immediately reckon; but it seems to have a following in right libertarian circles. Remarkably however, a casual examination of everyday affairs readily reveals that this idea goes counter to everyday exchanges. We pay for services all the time. When a bar hires a four man band to play for $500 for two and a half hours, that is a legitimate exchange of goods, in the form of money, and services. How is this resolved? Who owns our labor?
Apparently, the solution is rather simple. When we talk about who owns labor, we are not talking about labor in the abstract. We are talking about labor being performed by an actor. When we talk about "labor," we do not consider it headless. Hence in the example above, Sam owns [singing by Sam]. No one else owns [singing by Sam] except Sam. It becomes clear now who owns what. Note that it is perfectly legitimate for Sam to have complete control of [singing by Sam] for why should someone else dictate his actions. Likewise, the band owns [playing by band]. Therefore, it becomes clear that ones labor is the ownership of the actor.
Demanding services from others is slavery.
Demanding services from others is slavery.
The Groundlord
Glossary
- Groundlord
- Noun
- A person who rents land
- Groundlordship
- Noun
- the condition or position of a groundlord
On Anarchy
True anarchy begins as un-landed anarchy or at most transiently landed anarchy. Once you start establishing permanent exclusive domains on land, justice requires that you give back the value of the land to the others whom you are excluding. Hence, land rent.
Land rent does not require a government and would work without a state; it is the just thing to do. However, people don't always do the just thing. Right libertarians make silly arguments like: "land is not common" or "this is my land because I was here first". People don't always do the just thing, which is why there are private collection agencies and many people avoid paying what they need to pay. It is also the reason there are courts.
I used to be an anarchist and in some ways I still think I am. However, justice is more paramount and eliminating the government is not anymore a necessary goal for me to establish justice. It would be nice to eliminate the State, with all its ugly baggage such as interventionism; if only everyone else did the right thing. But we live in reality - we can’t even agree on what the right thing is.
Anarchy means more than the absence of the state; it is the absence of violence. Hence, in theory, if people voluntarily did what is expected of them within the societal arrangements, then there would be no situations where violence is inevitable. Of course, this can only be sustained if people are satisfied: their basic liberties are maintained and they are happy. The question then becomes 'what is the best societal arrangement that produces the most freedom for everyone?'; I have concluded for myself that it's in Georgism. People have rights to occupy land but the value of the land belongs to everyone.
People ask how Georgism can be reconciled with an anarchy. It is not an elaborate arrangement. Set up a trust where the land rent goes and have private assessors determine market land rent values at regular intervals. Then have the money go straight to citizens dividend.
Land rent does not require a government and would work without a state; it is the just thing to do. However, people don't always do the just thing. Right libertarians make silly arguments like: "land is not common" or "this is my land because I was here first". People don't always do the just thing, which is why there are private collection agencies and many people avoid paying what they need to pay. It is also the reason there are courts.
I used to be an anarchist and in some ways I still think I am. However, justice is more paramount and eliminating the government is not anymore a necessary goal for me to establish justice. It would be nice to eliminate the State, with all its ugly baggage such as interventionism; if only everyone else did the right thing. But we live in reality - we can’t even agree on what the right thing is.
Anarchy means more than the absence of the state; it is the absence of violence. Hence, in theory, if people voluntarily did what is expected of them within the societal arrangements, then there would be no situations where violence is inevitable. Of course, this can only be sustained if people are satisfied: their basic liberties are maintained and they are happy. The question then becomes 'what is the best societal arrangement that produces the most freedom for everyone?'; I have concluded for myself that it's in Georgism. People have rights to occupy land but the value of the land belongs to everyone.
People ask how Georgism can be reconciled with an anarchy. It is not an elaborate arrangement. Set up a trust where the land rent goes and have private assessors determine market land rent values at regular intervals. Then have the money go straight to citizens dividend.
The Meaning of Taxes
I feel silly writing this note because I am merely stating the obvious. However, it seems that from talking to a few people recently, something which should be obvious is lost to some. I expect this to not be so long so please bear with me.
What are taxes?
Taxes are payment to a party, call it Government, for claims to monetary obligations or assertions that there is money owed. But what does money owed mean? It means that if I raise 10 chickens and the Government says I have to pay the amount of 3 chickens for taxes, it means the Government claims that the labor and the capital that went to 3 chickens is theirs. In short, it's as if I have to pay 3 chickens although I doubt any tax office would accept that as payment. The claim is being made that for every 10 chickens I feed and raise, 7 are truly mine and 3 are owned by the Government.
But is this justifiable? And is this moral? To answer this, one can merely analyze by noting ownerships. In my chicken farm, I raise, labor, and feed 10 chickens. If they get sick, I pay the agricultural veterinarian for services and medicine. All effort and money spent comes from myself. Everything else that the chickens need to mature comes from the abundance of nature; the air, water, the earth, the occasional beetle or earthworm they find to eat are natural. Who owns nature? Nature as a whole is the heritage of all mankind. In abundance, the air, the water and the Earth obligate me with nil to mankind. In scarcity, I would arguably have an obligation to mankind; but it is not to Government. Why then does Government claim to own 3 chickens that I have?
The somewhat keen observer might say, the Government needs 3 chickens to supply the army to provide security for the nation. However, this is a bogus argument. Firstly, I did not ask for the security that they are requiring me to pay. Secondly, how did they get to the value of 3 chickens? If I raised 20 chickens instead, would they demand 6 chickens? Why would the amount of labor and capital I put into making myself comfortable in life be proportional to the amount of money I owe for security, if it is indeed that I owe money for security. The arbitrariness of using labor and capital as a measure is the argument's weakest point.
This is evidenced when one looks at other forms of labor with less tangible products. If instead of chicken farming, I was a programmer and I wrote 4000 lines of code, why would I owe 1200 lines of code to the Government? It seems that chickens, delicate and tender they sometimes are, would require more physical security.
There are ways to fund a manageable Government, but taxing labor and capital are at best suspect and at worst immoral. Government shouldn't be allowed to claim ownership of something, anything, be it chickens or programming code, for no legitimate reason.
What are taxes?
Taxes are payment to a party, call it Government, for claims to monetary obligations or assertions that there is money owed. But what does money owed mean? It means that if I raise 10 chickens and the Government says I have to pay the amount of 3 chickens for taxes, it means the Government claims that the labor and the capital that went to 3 chickens is theirs. In short, it's as if I have to pay 3 chickens although I doubt any tax office would accept that as payment. The claim is being made that for every 10 chickens I feed and raise, 7 are truly mine and 3 are owned by the Government.
But is this justifiable? And is this moral? To answer this, one can merely analyze by noting ownerships. In my chicken farm, I raise, labor, and feed 10 chickens. If they get sick, I pay the agricultural veterinarian for services and medicine. All effort and money spent comes from myself. Everything else that the chickens need to mature comes from the abundance of nature; the air, water, the earth, the occasional beetle or earthworm they find to eat are natural. Who owns nature? Nature as a whole is the heritage of all mankind. In abundance, the air, the water and the Earth obligate me with nil to mankind. In scarcity, I would arguably have an obligation to mankind; but it is not to Government. Why then does Government claim to own 3 chickens that I have?
The somewhat keen observer might say, the Government needs 3 chickens to supply the army to provide security for the nation. However, this is a bogus argument. Firstly, I did not ask for the security that they are requiring me to pay. Secondly, how did they get to the value of 3 chickens? If I raised 20 chickens instead, would they demand 6 chickens? Why would the amount of labor and capital I put into making myself comfortable in life be proportional to the amount of money I owe for security, if it is indeed that I owe money for security. The arbitrariness of using labor and capital as a measure is the argument's weakest point.
This is evidenced when one looks at other forms of labor with less tangible products. If instead of chicken farming, I was a programmer and I wrote 4000 lines of code, why would I owe 1200 lines of code to the Government? It seems that chickens, delicate and tender they sometimes are, would require more physical security.
There are ways to fund a manageable Government, but taxing labor and capital are at best suspect and at worst immoral. Government shouldn't be allowed to claim ownership of something, anything, be it chickens or programming code, for no legitimate reason.
The Land Ownership Kind of Ownership
People are often bewildered by what we mean when we say that ones land ownership is not absolute or that the ultimate owners of land is all mankind. They envision land being grabbed from them or that people trampling on their lawn plants or raiding their refrigerators. Hopefully, this short explanation will clarify why we say that all mankind is the ultimate owners of land and what the ramifications of this statement are.
There are two ways to enjoy the rights of ownership of any given object. The first way is if one legitimately, unequivocally, and absolutely owns an object, then he or she should enjoy the full rights of its ownership. Ones labor falls under this category. As a corollary to this, capital and fruits of ones labor also fall under this category.
The second way is if one pays dues to the rightful owner to enjoy exclusive rights. For example, renting an RV gives you an expectation of security and privacy while in the RV.
The question posed at this juncture is what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is land ownership? Is it the first way or the second way? To answer this, we consult the ancients for wisdom. In particular, we refer to John Locke's 2nd Treatise
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm...
We begin with what people are familiar with: homesteading. Chapter V section 27 discusses the process and principle. Essentially, the principle of homesteading guarantees that people enjoy the rights of ownership to land that they have appropriated. It articulates that they should enjoy the rights in full and therefore they should remain unmolested by others when exercising those rights. That is, no one should take the land from them by force or destroy their possessions in that land. The important point to note, however, is that Locke ends the section with the phrase “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” He repeats this phrase or a variation of this phrase several times. For example, in chapter V section 33 “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left.” This condition is the Lockean Proviso.
The reason for Locke's emphasis of this point is clear when one reads the chapter in its entirety. Locke begins the chapter in section 25 with God (or 'nature' for those who prefer) “has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.” This statement is a universal truth. The ownership of land is not transferrable and cannot be changed by the State or any individual or corporation. Its ultimate owners are all mankind and all mankind are heirs to the land.
In discussing homesteading, he was explaining that if land is in abundance, men can appropriate land and treat it as their own. However, this initial enjoyment of the rights of ownership lessens in degree proportional to the scarcity of the land. That is, as the demand for the land increases, the strength of the argument for appropriation decreases. Ultimately, land is never and can never be truly absolutely owned by any one individual, corporation or State. It remains the ownership of all mankind.
We are now in a position to ask our main question: what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is with respect to land? It is of the second kind. Ones enjoyment of rights to ownership of land is established by effectively renting from all mankind -- or for practical purposes, all mankind local -- a unit portion of what mankind owns. When the demand for that unit of land is nil, no amount is owed. This is simply what homesteading is.
On the other hand, when the demand rises, an injustice is created; that is, ones exclusive use of the land is excluding others from using the now in-demand unit of land. To correct the injustice, compensation has to be made to everyone around for the use of the land. To determine the amount of compensation that has to be made, consider how much someone else who was excluded would be willing to pay for renting the same unit of land. This value happens to be the free market value of the land rent. Hence, the just compensation is that land rent. This rent belongs to and should be distributed to everyone because everyone is the rightful owner of the land. A common misconception is that the rent becomes funding for the State. This is not so and shouldn't be so.
There are two ways to enjoy the rights of ownership of any given object. The first way is if one legitimately, unequivocally, and absolutely owns an object, then he or she should enjoy the full rights of its ownership. Ones labor falls under this category. As a corollary to this, capital and fruits of ones labor also fall under this category.
The second way is if one pays dues to the rightful owner to enjoy exclusive rights. For example, renting an RV gives you an expectation of security and privacy while in the RV.
The question posed at this juncture is what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is land ownership? Is it the first way or the second way? To answer this, we consult the ancients for wisdom. In particular, we refer to John Locke's 2nd Treatise
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm...
We begin with what people are familiar with: homesteading. Chapter V section 27 discusses the process and principle. Essentially, the principle of homesteading guarantees that people enjoy the rights of ownership to land that they have appropriated. It articulates that they should enjoy the rights in full and therefore they should remain unmolested by others when exercising those rights. That is, no one should take the land from them by force or destroy their possessions in that land. The important point to note, however, is that Locke ends the section with the phrase “at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” He repeats this phrase or a variation of this phrase several times. For example, in chapter V section 33 “Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left.” This condition is the Lockean Proviso.
The reason for Locke's emphasis of this point is clear when one reads the chapter in its entirety. Locke begins the chapter in section 25 with God (or 'nature' for those who prefer) “has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.” This statement is a universal truth. The ownership of land is not transferrable and cannot be changed by the State or any individual or corporation. Its ultimate owners are all mankind and all mankind are heirs to the land.
In discussing homesteading, he was explaining that if land is in abundance, men can appropriate land and treat it as their own. However, this initial enjoyment of the rights of ownership lessens in degree proportional to the scarcity of the land. That is, as the demand for the land increases, the strength of the argument for appropriation decreases. Ultimately, land is never and can never be truly absolutely owned by any one individual, corporation or State. It remains the ownership of all mankind.
We are now in a position to ask our main question: what kind of enjoyment of rights of ownership is with respect to land? It is of the second kind. Ones enjoyment of rights to ownership of land is established by effectively renting from all mankind -- or for practical purposes, all mankind local -- a unit portion of what mankind owns. When the demand for that unit of land is nil, no amount is owed. This is simply what homesteading is.
On the other hand, when the demand rises, an injustice is created; that is, ones exclusive use of the land is excluding others from using the now in-demand unit of land. To correct the injustice, compensation has to be made to everyone around for the use of the land. To determine the amount of compensation that has to be made, consider how much someone else who was excluded would be willing to pay for renting the same unit of land. This value happens to be the free market value of the land rent. Hence, the just compensation is that land rent. This rent belongs to and should be distributed to everyone because everyone is the rightful owner of the land. A common misconception is that the rent becomes funding for the State. This is not so and shouldn't be so.
- poikilos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)