Establishing an ethical foundation really is the key to figuring out how best to resolve disputes and avoid conflict. That's why theory is so important, and why I'm right there with @kafkanarchy84 on this. Once you have your ethics down and logically consistent, the "what we can do right now" tends to fall into place, though not necessarily always. :D
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The reason I don't focus much on theory is that there are always assumptions about human nature in the theory and in the process of reaching whatever our end goal is, we will indefinitely discover a different kind of human nature that correlates to the changing situation, we may not even recognize ourselves by that point. It's one thing to use history to guess about what we will look like, it's another to see it play out.
Some things I don't understand about this though is, if everything is based around privately property, who decides what belongs to who? What happens if I don't have the right to any land, couldn't it be considered violent to deny me the right to farm and build a house somewhere? @kafkaanarchy84 @anarcho-Andrei
This is why theory is important: there are ethical ways to acquire property. You don't have a right to any land, the same way you don't have a right to have anything in the first place. You can acquire things through your own effort, and this is how property is justly acquired. In the case of land, this would require you to homestead it. Homesteading, basically, is altering a plot of land from its state of nature through your efforts. Through the process of, say, cultivating a plot of land into a small farm and building a house on it, you've homesteaded it. You have demonstrated and executed your exclusive use of that plot, thereby establishing your ownership of it. That ownership is just/ethical because you haven't used coercion against another individual to acquire it. You haven't violated anyone's bodily or property ownership.
This assumes that the land is unowned. Unowned is exactly what it sounds like: no one has homesteaded it and claimed it as theirs. If the area you move to has no unowned land, as would be the case in essentially any metropolitan area, there is no ethical way to homestead any land. The next best method is to engage in exchange with the owners of the land that has already been homesteaded. This can happen any number of ways, from renting a property from the owner, to purchasing the property and land claim from the homesteader.
The key is to avoid the use of coercion. Not having something is not coercion; you have no right of possession to anything except your body, and this is as a consequence of being born with it and having exclusive access to it.
What discourages the hoarding and exploitation of land though? and what motivation would those who wish to control others have to not use coercion and violence? I don't want to equate the concept of ownership with greed but isn't it possible that they reinforce each other?
How does one hoard land if one has to pay for its upkeep? A lot of the land grabbing we can see around us currently is due in large part to the monopoly of government on conflict resolution. They decide who gets what, and they can subsidize some at the expense of others. Consider how much effort it takes to actually secure your house against trespassers absent a socialized police force. How much would you have to spend in order to make sure your home was safe from intruders? The costs would actually be less, but individuals would have to pay them out of their own pockets; it wouldn't be taxes providing for them.
As for what motivation would disincent people from using coercion and violence? Simple. It's the same concept as to why it's not profitable to be a shit-tier human on Steemit, except with guns. Without a monopoly on decision making, individuals alone present little threat, and the threat they do pose is restricted by their access to resources. How terrifying would the US military be if they had to fund everything through what would essentially be bake sales? Who would willingly contribute to it knowing the numerous immoral acts it has engaged in?
People don't necessarily have to keep up the land, what if they just buy it as a commodity that they could potentially make money or trade of in some other way that benefits them? It still seems like it would make way to a class of landowners and a class of tenants who would be subservient to them.
I am trying to understand because, at the very least, this all sounds a little bit better than what we have now, I just don't see how it would be sustainable coming from where we are coming.
As of now (and you are welcome to try and convince me otherwise, as I said, I'm more focused on what I can do to make the situation better right now), I see more potential in the idea that land belongs to no one, not a state, not an individual. Couple this with a return to a more tribal way of living where consensus is built within communities and then a similar consensus built between communities. I think these communities are already being formed now, as we speak and they're ability to solve problems efficiently would be pretty obvious if they weren't always the victims of coercion.
I think it's really impossible to come up with any substantial system or non-system that could really be sustainable if we don't first foster a culture of cooperation and interdependence and change the overall mentality from scarcity to abundance.
I am happy to learn more about your ideas though, the earlier we can find consensus with others the better :-D
If land belongs to no one - that is, no one can claim exclusive use - who gets to use a particular plot for what end?
That could be up for discussion in the community or between different communities. When there's a dispute other communities could be invited to mediate
As for purchasing land as a commodity, how would you prevent trespassers from attempting to utilize your land and homestead it in violation of your property ownership? You'd have to expend resources to secure it, which is in effect the upkeep of that land. Maintaining large tracts of land absent a socialized enforcement agency like government is costly (though cheaper than the funds used to that purpose currently) and it would have to be paid by the individual attempting to maintain that land as a commodity. Excluding people from unused land just to hoard it is a financially losing proposition except in the very long term, and one would have to be unimaginably wealth in order to maintain that claim over time.
I would propose that in the case of land the correct property theory is that of the Individualist anarchists. They asserted that the only true title to land is 'use and possession.' That is, to rightly own land, you must be in possession of it. For example, you must be living on it, keeping it up etc. This would also follow for businesses. You can only own a business insofar as you must actively manage its day to day operations. This would prevent absentee ownership, or direction of operations from afar. However, it would leave ample room for incentive to work and accumulate wealth - up to a point. This would also solve the problem of vast and unaccountable hierarchies.
Yes!