Use/Occupancy rules of Ownership: Why?

[Brad Reddekopp]

I'd appreciate it if someone could lay out in concise form the reasoning that should lead to accepting use/occupancy rules of ownership as opposed to the view that if I have earned ownership of something, it remains mine until I explicitly choose to relinquish that ownership (or until I die).

[Hierophant]

I have a blog entry coming on this topic. Here is a thread on anti-state.com that may be of interest:
http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?b ... 72;start=0

[Brad Reddekopp]

He makes a good point when he says that all concepts of property include the concept of abandonment as relinquishing ownership (the thing becomes unowned) and that something that is unowned can become owned through use. Everyone recognizes salvage.

The point of contention between us, I think, has to do with at what point we can say that something has really been abandoned and is, therefore, unowned.

I'll return to my favourite example of where mutualism (as I understand it so far) seems simply wrong to me. I purchase a house and land and put twenty years of development and upkeep into it. Then, I have a need to go away for a couple of years. I come back and I find that someone else has moved in and, suddenly, I no longer have a legitimate claim to that property. I've put myself into the place for twenty years and, in the short space of 48 months, I've lost it to someone who's done diddly-squat except to move in. Do you understand why that seems to me fundamentally unjust?

I suggest that two things should be taken into consideration in such a situation: 1) how much (time, money, "blood, sweat, and tears") I put into the place and 2) whether or not I made clear my intention to return.

I think it's necessary to consider what one has put of oneself into property and I think it's necessary to differentiate between intentional abandonment and leaving it for a while with the expressed intention of returning.

[MustangGT]

Brad is clarifying one of my major concerns about mutualism as well. I share Brad's perception on this issue.

[Cork]

This is another area of mutualism where I think there's a lot of confusion. Just as the prevailing wisdom that mutualists "oppose employment" is flawed, so is the prevailing wisdom that the "occupancy and use" schtick goes for *all* property. In fact, it was basically only meant for land (landlord property, basically). Tucker did not think that capital goods could only be held through "occupancy and use." He was not against someone privately owning tools and hiring an employee to use them.

Tucker made exceptions to the occ-and-use stance, even for land. And even Proudhon was pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. He said, "... I never meant to ... forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I believe that all these forms of human activity should remain free and optional for all."

[Brad Reddekopp]

Interesting, Cork.

[Hierophant]

Why is it that it's only this one issue that everyone talks about?

[Brad Reddekopp]

It's the concept in mutualism that many of us have found most offensive so far.

[Hierophant]

There is nothing offensive about it. In fact, I find your rejection of it offensive.

[Brad Reddekopp]

You seem to have utterly failed to understand my objections.

[Hierophant]

Sure, but I find your position offensive.

[Brad Reddekopp]

I'm asking honest questions. Why are your responses so piss-poor? Either you don't give a shit about answering or you've embraced mutualism without understanding it well enough to defend it decently. Or both. What is it?

[Hierophant]

You're saying you find my position offensive. Why can't I say that I find yours offensive? What question are you referring to?

[Brad Reddekopp]

Holy shit. Don't you fucking read what is posted to you?

[Hierophant]

I do. You said "It's the concept in mutualism that many of us have found most offensive so far."