How to leave your house for a year

[tism]

I don't particularly call myself a mutualist (mostly because of what I've understood about mutualist money and credit, which I might write about sometime). But I do at least agree with the mutualist theory of property rights.

So it seems that capitalists and other non-mutualists don't enjoy the idea of mutualist property ownership/posession, and specifically what they believe it implies about what happens with your ownership of property when you leave it to go somewhere else for awhile.

I consider it as follows:

If we assume mutualist property ownership, it is considerable that for a former owner to maintain ownership of a property while he is absent, he would pay a tenant (the new owner) to maintain claim to that ownership in his place.

In that case, the "tenant" is exercising his posession/ownership of the property by using it, as mutualist theory supposes. All the while, the earlier "owner" is paying some agreed value to the tenant in order to maintain a legitimate claim against the property upon return. This can of course be a voluntary natural-rights based agreement between individuals.

Even under mutualism, one can still make a claim on a house that he has rightfully paid to own (though not absently owned), and that right can be legitimately validated with force if necessary, if the tenant decides to fraudulently withdraw the deal by not releasing the house when the owner returns.

So simply, what does an owner do when he wishes to maintain ownership of a house while he leaves it for a year? He pays someone to own it for him.

Would a mutualist agree with that idea?

[Hierophant]

So simply, what does an owner do when he wishes to maintain ownership of a house while he leaves it for a year? He pays someone to own it for him.

Would a mutualist agree with that idea?

I don't understand it: it seems incoherent to me. Ownership presumes the ability to decide to keep something. At the end of the year, the new owner should have the choice of keeping the property, or gifting it back. Otherwise he is as you named him, a tenant, subject to the restrictions of rent, and your whole analogy collapses.

Either the occupant is the owner or he is not the owner. If he is the owner, then he has no obligation to gift it. There's no middle ground here.

[Hierophant]

From the mutualist standpoint, the contract would be invalid and therefore unenforceable. Any attempt to kick the rebelling "tenent" out would be unjust.

[tism]

Well they are both part owner. The tenant is an owner because of the mutualist theory of ownership. And the former owner retains ownership through his cooperation with (payment toward) the tenant.

So it is a co-ownership scenario, with the tenant bargaining with the house he legitimately owns through using it and the former owner bargaining with some other value (money, etc) which is legitimately recognized as payment to own.

[tism]

It is possible to buy ownership of a house in mutualism, is it not? In essence, paying the owner to leave, if the owner agrees. In this situation, I'm assuming the owner has already agreed to leave when the former owner returns, and that this is enforceable because the payment to the tenant is recognized as a legitimate purchase.

[Hierophant]

The scenario where a person signs a contract in advance is not at all the same as a scenario where the person buys the house, then sells it back.

[tism]

But are the terms of such an agreement legitimately enforceable in mutualism?

Can a tenant and owner work out an agreement to have the owner pay the tenant to live in the house for the year, and does that payment constitute a legitimate claim of ownership upon the owner's return?

If that's not the case, I'm not saying that I disagree with mutualist principles of ownership, or that I would criticize it because of this problem. I'm just wondering what a mutualist would think about this as an answer to the capitalist's criticism.

[Hierophant]

But are the terms of such an agreement legitimately enforceable in mutualism?

I don't believe so, no.

Can a tenant and owner work out an agreement to have the owner pay the tenant to live in the house for the year, and does that payment constitute a legitimate claim of ownership upon the owner's return?

No.

If that's not the case, I'm not saying that I disagree with mutualist principles of ownership, or that I would criticize it because of this problem. I'm just wondering what a mutualist would think about this as an answer to the capitalist's criticism.

I don't see how it corresponds to mutualist principles.

[tism]

Well, fuck it. I tried.

[Brad Reddekopp]

See? It told you it was a crazy ideology.

[Dil]

How to Leave your House for a Year

There's something inherently wrong with one's ideology if it has this as a a major issue of contention. Many people, including myself, would find it an insulting intrusion of privacy to have to justify leaving their own house to others before it can be considered legitimate. Where do we cross the line? If it's OK to demand that everyone have a reason for leaving their own house for 1 year, why not a month, why not a week?

[MustangGT]

See? It told you it was a crazy ideology.

QFT

[Hierophant]

It is not a crazy ideology! It's not the ideology's fault if you're all fucking capitalist bigots who love the land monopoly!

[tism]

I don't love the land monopoly. That's why I considered mutualistic property ownership principles.

I thought it would make some sense to put that one can pay for ownership even if he is not an occupant, since one can legitimately buy property as long as the existing owner wants to sell.

Sort of a "reverse rent" arrangement, I thought that would please some people who are anti-rent like myself.

But in the end it is not an enforceable arrangement since the right of ownership belongs only to the new owner and as a result he can't be legitimately held to anything.

That doesn't preclude such arrangements from actually happening, though. And I would still claim that such arrangements are at least better than renting.

[Hierophant]

How are they better than renting?