AC axiom question

[Jcrew]

Suppose person A somehow got marooned on an island. Over the years, the person mixes his labor with all the island so it satisfies the generally accepted threshold for most ACer's to determine ownership. One particular characteristic of person A is that this particular recluse lifestyle maximizes his utility moreso than any other type.

Now suppose a 2nd person B, washes up on shore. Now if person A refuses any portion of the island to person B, what would person B do if he was devout follower of AC?

[Borodog]

A) "Labor mixing" is not a part of anarchocapitalist theory
B) It doesn't matter. He'll do what he needs to do to survive, and the two will do what they need to do to maximize their individual psychic profits.

[Jcrew]

From wiki:

Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[ QUOTE ]
...It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with".....

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
From wiki:

Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[ QUOTE ]
...It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with".....

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The link is wrong, and needs to be updated. The Lockean "labor mixing" idea is obsolete among anarchist theorists as being neither necessary nor sufficient. For example, if I walk down an unowned beach and pick up a seashell, I own it in every conceivable way, yet I have "mixed" no labor with it (beyond simply picking it up). Furthermore, if I sneak onto my neighbor's property and cut down his tree and make a chair, I do not own the chair despite the fact that I have "mixed my labor" with it.

Hence, neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]


The link is wrong, and needs to be updated. The Lockean "labor mixing" idea is obsolete among anarchist theorists as being neither necessary nor sufficient. For example, if I walk down an unowned beach and pick up a seashell, I own it in every conceivable way, yet I have "mixed" no labor with it (beyond simply picking it up). Furthermore, if I sneak onto my neighbor's property and cut down his tree and make a chair, I do not own the chair despite the fact that I have "mixed my labor" with it.

Hence, neither necessary nor sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually from your two examples, it still follows that definition, since the seashell was unowned prior to you picking it up and the tree was already owned. I think the definition only applies to origin ownership.

[Borodog]

It's usually called "First appropriation" or "homesteading."

But "labor mixing" is still neither necessary nor sufficient.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Now suppose a 2nd person B, washes up on shore. Now if person A refuses any portion of the island to person B, what would person B do if he was devout follower of AC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming egregiously that Person A has not gone completely nuts, I think he would gladly welcome some company and help. If not, he's a threat to Person A's survival. Person A will attempt to kill him.

AC makes more sense when you get rid of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts"

[Jcrew]

The answers that I was looking for are that either

1.)person B is justified of using implied threat of force to re-appropriate himself some of person A'a resources.

2.)person B should respect person A's ownership, and swim as far into the ocean as possible.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The answers that I was looking for are that either

1.)person B is justified of using implied threat of force to re-appropriate himself some of person A'a resources.

2.)person B should respect person A's ownership, and swim as far into the ocean as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to get either answer. Justification doesn't matter. The newcomer will fight for his survival in this situation regardless of whether anyone thinks he is right, wrong, moral or immoral. It doesn't matter.

The idea behind non-aggression as it pertains to AC is functional; not moral. Humans, having secured enough resources to lower their time preference, are better off with trading, and capitalism evolves. However, when the commonly socially-accepted norm of property rights interferes with one's ability to act toward an optimal state of affairs, blood will be shed.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
The answers that I was looking for are that either

1.)person B is justified of using implied threat of force to re-appropriate himself some of person A'a resources.

2.)person B should respect person A's ownership, and swim as far into the ocean as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I think you raise a good question, the correct answer to which is 2). This assumes of course (as stated in your original question) that person B wants to be an ACer at all costs and that person A refuses every offer that B makes, like working until he dies for A's benefit in exchange for the bare essentials for survival.

Failing that, chances are B will abandon his lofty AC ideals in the name of survival.