First acquisition (AC question)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
History is filled with examples of property rights developing in the market. Actually, all property rights developed in the market before they were monopolized by the state. A good example is property rights in radio frequencies, which were being sorted out quite nicely in the courts before the Federal government nationalized, i.e. forceably seized, all radio frequencies and handed them out to priveleged members of a new government-licensed radio cartel.

No matter what crazy people like Theftertarian believe, people really do seek to minimize costs. Conflict is costly. Property rights rise up spontaneously to deter and resolve conflicts over scare resources, as well as systems to establish, vet, and prove claims, as well as systems to resolve conflicts. Violent coercive monopolies are not needed at any point along the line.

The places where you see perpetual conflicts, high costs, destruction and depletion of resources, etc, are where governments either prevent property rights from developing or acknowledging them (meaning that claimants have no access to the state's monopoly courts to settle disputes).

History is rife with examples. For example the Range Wars occured because the federal government refused to allow claims of more than 160 acres. This stake size was far to small for the grazing of cattle and sheep; hence competing ranchers had to graze their herds in the Federal commons. This lead to not only a tragedy of the commons in the grazing lands, but also to violent conflict, as ranchers repeatedly tried to fence off claims which the courts then refused to acknowledge. The disputes got settled, as they always are when they can't be settled in courts, violently. The violence was very costly, but it was the cheapest option given that they had no access to the courts. Gosh, I wonder why the drug trade is so violent?

Another tragedy of the commons is underway right now in the oceans. Seafood species are being massively overfished, because governments (not just ours) refuse to allow property rights in fisheries to develop. Modern technology makes electronic "fencing", patrol and enforcement of oceanic claims a simple matter, yet governments refuse to allow such rights to develop. The result is a population crash in the oceans, with some estimates I have seen showing a 90% depletion rate amongst many seafood species.

Owners of property have two incentives: to make a living from the property now, but also to preserve the market value of the property, i.e. their capital investment. In a commons, the second incentive does not exist. Furthermore, in a commons, there is no way to exclude users of the commons (excepting of course through corrupt and politicized government privelege systems). These effects combine to produce tragedies of the commons.

Anyone (excepting possibly Theftertarian) should be able to understand that there are only tragedies of the commons where there are commons.

[/ QUOTE ]Although this is a pretty good anti government speech. I'm not sure it it answers my question regarding unflinching property rights. And the possible need for public property. I'm am really trying to get at the logical solution. I personaly believe that an honest effort will lead to limited, uninterested legislative bodies.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing stopping X, M, N and O from pooling their resources voluntarily to share these costs, mitigate risk, achieve economies of scale in provision of defense, etc.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of exactly such an organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

[/ QUOTE ] That one was kinda a gimme. Do you enjoy paying for other peoples misteps provided it's voluntary?

[Borodog]

I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means. I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict. There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law. When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[hmkpoker]

I suppose that if homesteading, auctioning and other attempts to voluntarily appropriate the problem still breed conflict, it could easily be resolved by a private arbitator.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolute private property, the ability not merely of possesion and control but the ability to destroy. And to manipulate unrelated markets.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict

[/ QUOTE ] Unowned parcels of land. Information. The grand canyon. Scientific research.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there is people attemp this all the time, and people get better at it with each succesive attemp. Artificial law as opposed to what?

[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that if homesteading, auctioning and other attempts to voluntarily appropriate the problem still breed conflict, it could easily be resolved by a private arbitator.

[/ QUOTE ] In this senario the arbitator wants to null and void legal documentation, because of the simple fact the the parcel of land is not in the possesion or the control of documented owner. Is that OK, to do? More so is it what people who generally believe what affirms property rights, intial acquisition or volutary exchange plus possesion and control. Would wish to be done in the case where possesion and control are found absent?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In this senario the arbitator wants to null and void legal documentation, because of the simple fact the the parcel of land is not in the possesion or the control of documented owner. Is that OK, to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the system of post-mortem appropriation. In New Jersey, for example, if someone dies intestate, or is legally presumed dead, the common practice is to turn the property over to his spouse; if there is no spouse, it goes to the children; if there are no children it goes to the parents; if there are no parents it goes to the siblings, then aunts, uncles, closest surviving family members etc. etc. etc....and only if there's absolutely no one connected to him in any meaningful way whatsoever, the property is taken by eminent domain. Although these are state-sanctioned rules, I imagine that any civilized ACist society would have similar rules.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ] What is an ACist eminent domain?

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies. I have bought into what I believe is the ACist definition of proprety and would like to strip those who have legal documentaion by no other evidence of property. Can I do that?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What is an ACist eminent domain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolute private property, the ability not merely of possesion and control but the ability to destroy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, destroy whatever you own.

[ QUOTE ]
And to manipulate unrelated markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict

[/ QUOTE ] Unowned parcels of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unowned parcels of land cannot be "public property". Public property would mean something unworkable like, every person owns an equal quotal share of the property. Nothing could be done with the property without getting the permission of 6 billion people (or whatever arbitrarily sized group you arbitrarily restrict what you call "the public" to be for that particular property), which is impossible. What this would inevitably devolve into is an elite "caretaker" class, that would actually have control over the so-called "public property", i.e. they would become the actual owners in every meaningful sense except that they could not sell the property on the market and pocket the procedes (because then the jig would be up and the "public" would get prety pissed off that "their property" has been stolen from them).

What is so crazy about unowned parcels of land being owned by the people who homestead them, or so hard to understand about the market sorting out what constitutes abandoned property, other than that you just apparently don't want it to work?

[ QUOTE ]
Information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different discussion. Information is not scarce. Land is.

[ QUOTE ]
The grand canyon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the grand canyon be public property (i.e. the pseudo-private property of a few government bureaucrats)?

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, different discussion. But my answer would be the same, the market would sort out IP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there is people attemp this all the time, and people get better at it with each succesive attemp. Artificial law as opposed to what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-artificial law. I.e. law that is not made up by a tiny cabal of men and unilaterally forced on everyone else. Like a law that makes it illegal for banks to wire funds to internet gambling firms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody has to buy them. So what happens in a volunatry society is that people design products that favor the people that buy them. This includes the law. In a free market for law, "the law" would certainly be crafted by human beings (I imagine a judicial literature with perr review, as there is now a scientific literature). The difference is that if a lawmaker starts producing perverted law, nobody has to buy it.

This is really not hard to understand. The majority of people in society want justice out of their judicial system, whatever that society's definition of justice might be. Hence it will cater to them. Just decisions are valuable in the market, because they can be enforced. Unjust decisions are not valuable in the market, because they cannot be enforced.