Essays and thoughts

*intro*

“I think therefore I am.” I know I exist because I have consciousness. How do I know other things exist? Senses have been developed that make me aware of the things around me. How do I know that my senses are reliable? Relying on them increases my survivability. Assuming my senses are not reliable is counterintuitive and restricts what can be experienced to my own consciousness. I therefore must rely on my senses and trust that they provide me with accurate information or shrivel and die. In the strictest sense of word I can not know what exists outside myself but must assume that what I experience through my senses is reality.

From this assumption a host observances can be made. Within this world there are creatures both like and unlike me. Through the observance of these creatures the nature of these creatures can be made. Based on the observance of others and reflection of the nature of myself certain things can be ascertained concerning the nature of man. One such observance is that of free will.

What does it mean to have a free will? Free will is that part of the psyche that allows for choice; the ability to choose not only what is advantageous but also that which is detrimental. Without free will, terms such as crime, punishment, reward, and law would have no meaning since without the ability to choose between the options before us there exists no right to the consequences. If someone is bitten by a cat, that cat is under no obligation nor has the ability to pay restitution for the act of biting that person. The cat may be killed if a pattern is seen but this is in no way a punishment. It is justified solely through the prevention of further injuries the same way you would put a mat down to prevent slips in an area prone to such incidences. No, without this ability to choose we are merely puppets of a cosmic force that is playing out a cruel show for an absent audience. Whether this force is instinct or a deity makes little difference. We will therefore assume that there is a free will inherent in all humans for if the opposite is true all arguments are moot.

If this creature, man, can be determined to have enough in common, one to another, then consistency of approach is necessary. Consistency is the axiom that the principle approach is based. If a particular action or deed is proper for any given individual, all individuals of similar nature should find that the same idea, deed, or action is equally beneficial. Furthermore this axiom could then be used as a proof to test if an action is proper. In other words if an idea is truly a good idea it should be able to be applied to all equal situations with no contradiction. Two plus two is four regardless of whether we are speaking of apples, fingers, trees, or planets therefore this equation is valid. The free exchange of goods is beneficial to all parties and is therefore a valid means of acquiring wealth. Theft benefits the thief but not the victim therefore this is not a valid means of acquiring wealth. Furthermore if you apply the means of theft universally; I can steal from you, you can steal from me, etc; No wealth or property is created only exchanged through force and is therefore not a sustainable situation. This “principle” is inconsistent with growth, survival, and prosperity therefore it is invalid. Theft and all derivations therefore are incompatible with a healthy society. Whether burglary, fraud, or taxes, all transfer of the possession of property without the free consent of the owner is immoral.

That brings us to the idea of basic human rights. If applied consistently, it can be shown that rights, inherent to all humans, are valid and natural. These natural rights are inherent in all humans based on the nature of humanity. For instance, humans have free will; therefore individuals have exclusive right to the consequences of the actions they take. If the action results in the transformation of a portion of the natural world, that individual then has exclusive right to use of that object that he has transformed. We call this right, property.

*NAP*

To return to the idea of theft for a moment, let’s consider to principle of non-aggression. The non-aggression principle is the idea that unprovoked aggression against someone or the threat thereof is a violation of that person’s rights and is inconsistent with the survival and perpetuation of society and the human race. The initiation of force against another violates natural rights in that if removes unjustly that which a given human is entitled by virtue of his nature as a human. To attack another person physically for any reason other than in the case of self-defense or in the defense of others is immoral. It also violates the non-aggression principle to conscript someone else to commit such an act in your stead. But wait! If aggression against another is immoral how is it then consistent to say that it is not in the case of self-defense? Self-defense is that force that repels a violation of rights or resists a potential violation. That is why the non-aggression principle states that it is wrong to initiate force not that all force is immoral. After all without the right to defend a violation of rights how can one say that he has any rights at all? How this applies to property rights will be shown later. First we much define what ownership is.

The state of Ownership

Ownership is the state of holding exclusive right to the use of, the right to give permission over the use of any physical object. Does this then mean that we own ourselves? This concept seems to be known to be true almost intuitively but let us look at the merits of such an idea. The concept of self-ownership can be said to stem from our inherent ability to choose, that is, our free will. Since we not only act or “use ourselves” to commit any number of deeds but we are the ONLY ones able to do so; this would show that we have exclusive control over our own faculties. But can it be said that the owned is also the owner? If we own ourselves can we sell ourselves? Can it be said that we are ever divorced from ourselves? Obviously this is not true. One can perhaps transfer ownership of portions of one’s self such as a kidney, or a unit blood but not of the use of ones person. Can one then own all the physical portions of something without owning the whole?

*Self-Ownership*

Where the idea of self ownership fails is with the transfer of ownership. We can not transfer ownership of ourselves to anyone else. Even if we were to “sell” ourselves into slavery we still maintain complete and exclusive use of our faculties. Furthermore slavery poses another difficulty since it does not represent a proper ownership. Slavery as opposed to proper ownership must necessarily include coercion. Unlike with employment where one sells their services to another for a set price, slavery must cause another to act, through threat of force. If it were not so a “slave” could then end his tenure with his “master” at any time or choose not to perform a particular act without fear of violence from his “master”. This of course is not the case by the very definition of slavery. Slavery can never be a part of any free society, not because people don’t have the right to sell themselves but rather because people do not have the ability.

Self-ownership can be said to exist, however; because it meets the definition above though the transfer of ownership is not possible in whole, in part it is possible and one cannot own the part without the whole. Furthermore the concept of self-ownership is useful to simplify the origins of property rights. Removing the idea of self-ownership complicates the subject by forcing a longer, more indepth explanation. This is particularly helpful when you have limited time or space to make your point. It also helps when discussing the concepts with those whom the topics are alien.

For instance, when children are told in science class that all matter is made up of atoms it’s not meant to deceive the children nor does one believe the case to be that the teacher is so ignorant of the subject to believe that matter could be explained precisely in such simple terms. Speaking in such simple terms does facilitate the teaching of basic chemistry though. Obviously there is much more to it then that but one can not presume that if it were explained in more depth that the concepts could be understood by the children. Besides the school year is finite so to explain the topic in depth would take too long to be helpful. At the same time you can’t entirely skip over the study of matter at the atomic level when discussing chemistry.

So we use the simplistic idea of self-ownership in order to facilitate the explanation of deeper concepts. To simplify a claim of personal property rights, therefore, it can be said that they stem from self-ownership. So if I own myself I then own the fruits of the use of myself.

*Homesteading*

For instance, if person “A” takes a previously unowned piece of wood and carves it into a bowl, he would then have exclusive right to use that bowl because it was the result of his own actions upon that piece of wood. Because he was the sole laborer on a previously unworked and unowned natural resource no one else could have more of a claim for that bowl than he.

But wait! Isn’t person “A” violating the collective right of all men by taking a natural resource (the piece of wood) for his personal use that he did not create? No. It is true that natural resources are necessary for the survival of every individual for we live in a natural world. However, since it is unrealistic at best to expect that everyone must pay homage to all other living persons whenever one creates something from previously unworked natural resources we must assume the resources are unowned rather than owned jointly by all men. It is ridiculous, therefore, to assume that it is owned collectively by everyone. Attempting to say otherwise or worse to assert aggression against another for his acquisition of the piece of wood would violate his right to survival and therefore his property rights over himself (Right to life). Furthermore it is the height of arrogance to say all natural resources are owned, albeit only partially, by you merely for being born human. You did not create any portion of the natural world, nor can you presume to know better than any other person how a given resource should be allocated.

It is true that nothing is truly created by anyone but only transformed into some useful form. Yet this transformation represents a form of creation and can be the only basis for ownership. For surely it is necessary for the survival of any individual to have some system of ownership. Not only does ownership allow for the allocation of resources in the most just way possible but it also allows for peaceful society to exist. Without recognition of ownership in property there could be no concept of theft. Without a concept of theft the strong could be justified in preying upon the weak, causing continual strife and effectively ending any concept of society. Why then do we not speak of the ownership of air or space? These are not limited resources and they were not created by humans. Ownership is only necessary in those objects that are scarce and are only justly acquired through creation and exchange.

It has also been proposed that all natural resources be divided among all living humans evenly so as to eliminate the inherent inequality of the homesteading principle of property acquisition. This is a variation of the idea proposed above and is inconsistent for the same reasons. Additionally this proposal is logistically impossible for several reasons. 1) Most of the natural resources are not currently accessible. Even if you were to restrict this ownership to only the earth there is no way of knowing what is within the earth yet to be uncovered. Furthermore the shifting and moving of the earth’s surface alone would make it impossible to track what property under the surface belonged to whom. 2) What of the resources off the earth? If I take my newly acquired resources and I use them to travel to another planet and create a market for traveling to this new planet. Does this planet become mine? Does this planet become jointly owned by all persons and get divided up as the earth? Or do we revert to the homesteading principle for those resources off this planet. If that is the case, why not use this principle for those resources on the earth? 3) When a person is born new to this planet does that mean that he is entitled to no property for having been born after the earth was divided or do these people receive their parent’s property when they die? If they must wait until their parents die before they are entitled to property ownership how do they live until then, under the good graces of their parents? This option is clearly not practical and must necessarily result in slavery. Another option is that the earth would be re-divided to accommodate these new people every time someone is born. This option would make it impossible to know who owned what at any one time. Also, based solely on the subjectivity of value, to put a price tag on the resources would be equally impossible.

To return to my previous example, Person “A” is not stopping others from taking other unowned pieces of wood. For surely there exists more wood in the world then what person “A” took to make the bowl. He has not transgressed against anyone in any manner that could be conceived as violent or oppressive in anyway by taking a portion of previously unowned natural resource for the purpose of transforming it into something useful. Therefore there is no violation of rights if person “A” takes a piece of wood or any other natural resource for his use that is not justly owned by anyone else. Natural resources must be considered unowned not collectively owned provided that the resources are transformed through labor into something useful or are used in some manner useful to the acquisitioner or vital to his survival.

Wealth Transfer and the division of labor

Now let’s suppose person “A” has created his wooden bowl but doesn’t need one. He does, however need the spoon that person “B” has made. Person “B” likewise doesn’t need a spoon but he needs a bowl. They could then trade so that both could have what they desire. “A” would then be dispossessed of the bowl, having no more rights to it. “B” would be dispossessed of the spoon having no more rights over it. Because, in this scenario, both “A” and “B” have both labored on their respective possessions creating rightful ownership they both have right to transfer ownership to the other. Let it be pointed out as well that this transaction is necessarily positive for both persons regardless of the time, energy, or resources used to create the respective items. For the transaction to occur, assuming to force or fraud, person “A” must value the spoon over his bowl and person “B” must value the bowl over his spoon. Having traded, both parties therefore leave the transaction having gained from it.

Exchange Medium (money)

There is a problem however. This scenario creates an unlikely situation in which 2 people want what the other possesses and are willing to part with what they currently possess to acquire it. This is known as the double coincidence of wants. A more likely scenario is that person “A” will want the spoon made by person “B” but person “B” does not want the bowl. Person “A” must then find another product that person “B” will be willing to trade for. This second item is called a medium of exchange. After many such transactions a standard medium will typically arise.

To facilitate trade often times a medium for exchange is used. A good medium of exchange is anything that is universally desired or intrinsically valued that can be traded for goods and services from others. Also called money, a medium for exchange is often used when the fruits of one’s labor are not desired by the person(s) in possession of the goods desired by that person. A medium of exchange also known as money can literally be anything so long as it is accepted by the one being traded with though most often is intrinsically valuable (or rather universally desired) when it comes about organically. All different types of objects have been used throughout history as a medium for exchange. The best forms of money should meet four criteria.

Number 1 is scarcity. The law of supply and demand would dictate that the inundation of the supply of a given good would mean the availability of that object would be so high that a relatively large quantity of such a good would be necessary for a trade. Because one doesn’t want to be carrying around five tons of sand, for instance, to purchase a loaf of bread it would not be a good medium of exchange. Conversely if one used an object that was too scarce such as uranium or platinum the exchange rate would be too high to be worth using.

Number 2 is desirability. If no one wants the object you are attempting to trade with it obviously won’t make a very good medium for exchange. Using pond scum would not be a good medium for exchange because it is not universally desired.

Number 3 is endurability. If you try to use apples as money, for instance, after a couple of weeks your money will rot and you will have nothing to show for your labor. Though things such as grain have been used in the past as money a good medium of exchange must last.

Number 4 is non-counterfeitable. If your currency can be easily counterfeited it will lose all meaning. Natural resources provide an excellent medium for exchange because you can’t re-create them. If your money is a good that can be produced by someone then it can be produced by anyone. This would soon make it abundant thus creating an inflation of that money supply.

Gold and silver make great mediums for exchange because they meet all these requirements. Gold in particular is scarce enough that it would not take a large amount to make every day transactions. It’s not so scarce to make every day transactions difficult. It’s desirable for a number of different things; jewelry, electronics, decorations for instance. It is extremely durable that is to say it lasts a long time. It doesn’t rust or rot and can be easily measured for purity and mass. It is also a unique substance that is not easily counterfeited. Additionally it’s unique malleability makes any “cheaper” substitutes easily recognizable.

*The Division of Labor*

Let’s now suppose multiple persons labor to create an object. Who then owns the “fruit” of their combined efforts? They all do to the extent that they labored on the object. That is to say to the amount they contributed to the project. If they all contributed to the project in equal amounts then they own an equal amount of the product. If the contributions vary, then those involved would own the object proportional to their contribution. If someone contributed 40% he would own a 40% share, someone else 10% he would own a 10% share, etc.

This kind of cooperation almost always necessitates a prior arrangement to reduce bickering between co-owners. For example, suppose person “A” believes he contributed 20% and person “B” believes person “A” only contributed 10%. This kind of an argument is very difficult to solve without some prior arrangement. One way to remove any conflict would be to agree to sell the end product and split the price proportional to the ownership. This would necessitate a trade for something that could be split appropriately. Another possibility would be if one member “bought” the shares of the others thus retaining exclusive ownership over the finished product.

Now let’s look at the idea of capital. If lets say, person “A” owned a grove of trees. For this example we’ll say person “A” grew the trees from seeds he homesteaded from nature on previously unowned land, giving him sole claim to them. Person “A” has a plan to turn this grove of trees into paper but can’t do it on his own. There are various ways he could enlist the assistance of others in this endeavor.

One way would be to offer them a share of the profits from the sell of the paper proportional to the labor they provided to the project. Person “A” could also offer the workers a portion of the paper itself. Because they would have labored to create the paper they would be entitled to partial ownership of the end product and thus this would be a fair exchange.

*Wages*

Another possibility would be for person “A” to “buy” the shares of ownership from the others. This also provides many possibilities. The way most prevalent today is a concept called wages. An example would be if person “A” paid person “B” an agreed upon amount to cut the trees down. Person “B” is entitled to a portion of ownership over the finished product but sells his right to Person “A” for the agreed upon amount. This is beneficial for both parties and removes the possibility for disputes over ownership later.

Another possibility is if Person “C” labors to create the paper he has partial right to the end product. Person “A”, wanting to come to an agreeable solution to proper payment, offers to pay person “C” a certain amount per hour worked. Although Person “A” is paying for a service being performed it can still be measured in property rights. Person “C” would agree to an amount he believes his contribution is worth and will do the job and sell his portion of ownership back to person “A” for the agreed upon hourly rate. This works particularly well since if person “C” works many hours he is entitled to a larger portion of the finished product than he would if he had worked less. It may be said that person “A” though this process with become possessed of more than his “fair share” through this means if the paper sells for more than his portion for the labor he put into the project. This however is a false assumption. For we forget about risk. Person “C” for instance, will experience none. Person “C” is paid for his portion regardless of whether the paper sells or not. His portion has been bought by person “A”. Person “A” on the other hand experiences all the uncertainty of owning large quantities of paper that he can not use. He must sell them to purchase what he needs such as food, water, shelter. Additionally if person “D” were to purchase that paper and was thus able to sell if for more than he paid for it and more than his salesmanship labor is “worth” is it said that person “D” is then stealing from all the rest by receiving a good “worth” more than was charged him? Certainly not!

*Capitalism*

Now let’s suppose that person “A” owns no trees. He has made a great some of money (medium of exchange) by working on other projects and receiving money in exchange for his share. That money, therefore, represents labor performed. It further represents deferred consumption since, rather than saving, that money could have gone to pay for needs and wants of person “A”. Person “A” then takes the money, buys a saw mill and contracts with person “B” who, in our new scenario owns trees. Person “A” buys the trees already cut down from person “B” and hires person “C” and “D” to work the saw mill for him.

Person “A” at this point has had no contact with the wood. He has done no work that has directly facilitated the creation of the paper. Does that then mean that person “A” has to rights to the end product? Certainly not! The gathering of the capital, the setting up of the business arrangements, and the purchasing of the mill all contributed to the end product. In fact his contribution is even more than the others for a number of reasons. His delayed consumption represents a certain amount of effort that was needed for the end result. As mentioned above all the deals he made to get the people in place to create the paper was also invaluable. As touched upon previously one of his biggest contributions is his risk. If the paper doesn’t sell persons “C” and “D” still get paid. Person “B” certainly gets paid because the wood is already bought. Who loses out then if the paper doesn’t sell? Well it’s person “A”. It is entirely possible that for all his efforts, person “A” may get nothing whatever or worse may lose out ultimately for his endeavor. This is all worth a portion of the end result. He may not even in fact be able to extract his full portion at the beginning of the process. This too adds to his delayed consumption and his ultimate stake in the endeavor.

*Real Estate Property*

Let’s now turn our attention to real estate property rights. A claim for real property rights (real estate property) over a given area of the globe, that is a parcel of land, can be traced to an inherent ability to put such “property” to use toward a given goal aimed at benefiting oneself or others of ones choosing. Though merely “claiming” ownership or dominion over something does not make it so. There is a rationale that can be used for validating a claim.

Real Property rights stem from the previously explained personal property rights. If one builds a house on a portion of land one doesn’t necessarily have claim to the land under the house per se but rather he has claim to the house itself. That’s not to say that person “B” would not be violating person “A’s” property rights if he were to tunnel under his house weakening the foundation of “A’s” home. Just the opposite, to damage someone else’s property even during the free exercise of your own rights is a violation of that person’s property rights.

In the same way if person “A” were to plant a crop in a previously unworked field he would not own the land per se rather the plants in the soil. Person “A” could exercise ownership like authority over the land however without violating the rights of others since free access could damage his justly acquired personal property. If person “A” was to leave the land unplanted for a given amount of time as part of his farming style, he would not be violating the rights of others if he were to restrict access to the land during this time of non-use. This is due to the fact that if it were used by another during this time of “rest” it would cause the land to be less productive when person “A” went back to using it, thus causing person “A” to lose a portion of what would have been produced had it not been used during that time. Because of these facts person “A” would be decorous in claiming exclusive right to use the land because the use by others could cause person “A” to suffer a loss.

I think it important to explain at this juncture the difference between real land damage and perceived value loss. If a person moves to an adjacent lot and never cares for it builds a house that is an eye sore the subjective value of an adjacent plot of land may drop. Does this grant you the right to force your neighbor to clean his yard? Certainly not! You can perhaps persuade him through offers to help, pleading, etc. But force would constitute breaking the non-aggression principle. However if your neighbor were to dump toxic waste on your lawn for instance this would be grounds of a case because he physically damaged your property not just its perceived value.

Claiming true property rights in land is difficult at best due to several factors. Can it be said for instance that if a wind were to kick up the dust from “your land” and move that dust to someone else’s geographical area that you could go and retrieve your “property”? What dust particles are yours?

However, in as much as land can be said to be owned, once the land, through disuse or abandonment, has returned to a natural state it would revert back to an unowned natural resource. One could not put a definite time period on how long such a process would take. The reason being, depending on the land and the environment surrounding as well as the improvements made, it may take a varying amount of time to cause the previously owned land to revert back to a natural state. A natural state is defined as being that which is indistinguishable from previously unused land.

*Theft*

Now, to speak of stolen property delves slightly into the development of law in a voluntary society which is not the purpose of this essay, however I feel it important to touch on it here. To site my sources up front the majority of these ideas come directly from Murray Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty”. There are five possibilities when speaking of stolen property.

1) The original rightful owner is in current possession. This possibility lends itself to no further examination for the property is already in the hands of the person or persons that it should be. Nothing further need be done.

2) The property is in the hands of the person who stole it and the rightful owner is known. If this is the case, again without digging too deeply into the legal recourse of the matter, the property should be returned straight away to the rightful, original owner.

3) The property is currently possessed by the offender but the rightful owner is not known. Because the original owner is not known it can’t very well be surrenders to him. Neither can it be left in the hands of the thief. In this case for a lack of a better solution, the property would return to a state of nature, that is to say that it would become unowned. Unowned property, like an apple in the wild, is free for the taking to anyone who should stumble upon it that is except for the thief. The thief has no rights to the item for the fact that it was stolen by him.

4) The next possibility is that the property is not in the hands of the thief nor is it possessed by the rightful owner but rather a third party but the rightful owner is known. In this scenario the property, regardless of how this third party acquired the item, must be surrendered to the original owner. The original owner has done nothing wrong and should not be penalized for his property having ended up in another’s hand by way of a thief. Further more if this should occur the third party possessor would then have a claim against the thief for having stolen whatever he had lost in the transaction of acquiring the stolen property.

5) The fifth possibility is that the property is possessed by a third party unassociated with the theft and the rightful owner is not known. As with our previous scenario, because the property cannot be turned over to the rightful owner it returns to a state of unownership. How this situation differs, however, is that the third party in current possession of the item has committed no transgression, having come into possession of the stolen property and so is entitled to claim possession of the unowned property, having been the first to come across it in its natural state. In other words, the person in current possession may continue to possess the item, even after being found to have been stolen, so long as the original owner is not known.

But wait! What of the situation where property has been stolen and passed down as inheritance by the thief or a third party who has come into possession of it. Again we go back to our 5 scenarios. Keep in mind that anyone who is not the thief or the original owner is a third party. Thus the descendants of the thief should be considered third parties not implicated in the wrong doing that is to say that they are not culpable. Now if the descendants of the original owner, having passed down the legitimate ownership of the property, can be discovered, the property ought to be turned over to them. However, if it cannot be discovered definitively who the rightful owner was or who his descendants are no property should change hands. Proof of similar ethnicity, tribe, color, or background is not enough to prove ownership. It must be a direct descendant unless authentic paperwork can be presented showing that the original owner had intended to turn possession of the item over to the person in question or his ancestors.

**************

Steven Holman is a regular attendee of the weekly Monday Mises discussion group at Cafe Libertalia.  Monday Mises is a study group on Austrian Economic theory and market anarchy.  We meet every Monday at 7pm.