Use/Occupancy rules of Ownership: Why?

[Brad Reddekopp]

My comment was in reply to your "What question are you referring to?" Sometimes, you're quite maddening.

Perhaps I should take a break from this bullshit.

[Hierophant]

Look, I don't have an entry specifically on that point. I did write one a while ago that should come up on my blog in three days. Just be patient.

[Valgeir]

NoDeity,

You're a long-time member. Don't you know by now that Franc likes to play this sort of mental game?

Not putting you down, by that, Franc. Perhaps mental exercise would be better, but I do get the impression that you do it mostly for amusement. I just mean that you'll say things or phrase them in a way that is utterly logical, but seems to be designed, intentionally or not, to ruffle feathers. Not complaining, I think it adds a unique flavor to discourse with you.

Back on topic, what is the definition of "abandoned" that you use as a mutualist? I can only think of two possible philosophical (that is, not defined by duration of non-use, which would be arbitrary) definitions - that the property is not being used at a specific moment, which means property rights don't exist except that one can't use force to take that which you are employing at this exact moment. The second is the intent of use - does the current owner intend to use the property in question in the future, even though they're not using it now? In that case, the only possible gauge of intent is to ask the owner, and that means the only way to obtain ownership is by the consent of the current owner.

The problem that arises, is when an owner can't be found (or isn't sought). In that case, anyone who claims ownership would rightfully have it, but that means that we default to the former definition of abandonment, namely not in use at the exact moment.

[Hierophant]

I don't have any definition of abandonment beyond common sense. I don't think it's an issue in the real world. People understand what an abandoned property is.

[Hierophant]

I don't consider it a "mental game." I just don't type any more than I need to. As people on Skype can testify, I prefer to talk rather than type.

[Valgeir]

In the "real world" though, different people hold the rights concerning property to differing standards. It goes all the way from one end of the spectrum, namely that if you can get it then it's yours so long as you can keep it (no property rights), to an anarcho-capitalist perspective (infinite property rights). Other than by the agreement of the parties in question, any system which tries to redraw the lines of ownership based on abandonment will either need to enforce arbitrary time limits, or will suffer a complete social breakdown as people take whatever they think they might be allowed to keep.

[Hierophant]

No social rule, whatever its place on the spectrum, can exist without pre-existing agreement.

[Valgeir]

And you consider the agreement of any given two parties binding on a third party, due to location?

[Hierophant]

I do not consider any agreement binding on anyone but the people who make it.

[Valgeir]

Then the arbitrary abandonment laws are non-binding, and you have no moral framework for a society.

[neverfox]

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.

This is the first thing to acknowledge. Once you've gotten to this point, you're half way to being cured. So hold that thought...

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?

Well no wonder it seems unjust! That's not mutualism. That's the straw man version of mutualism. I'm not saying that you built the straw man but it's insidious. You'll find we are quite the just types.

Here is a simple thought exercise: Imagine yourself in the current system we have (should be easy) and you have this home and you go on this two year jaunt. Do you expect your house to be yours when you get back?

Allow me to be so bold as to guess you answer: yes.

Guess what...not only have you just imagined a Lockean world, you've also just imagined a mutualist world too. It seems that mutualism has the tendency to cause people to forget that the world we live in seems to work just fine without people fretting over their house. Sometimes this is because the people are not anarchists and assume that anarchy lacks legal order. But no one here would make that mistake, surely...

Might the grace period for salvage be lower? It might. But that's going to be based on the good faith and legal order of your community, just as it is anywhere. Something to remember:

As we have seen, arguments for the superiority of one set of property rules over another can be established only on consequentialist grounds (i.e., on the basis of prudential assessments of how they lead to results consistent with commonly accepted ideas of "fairness"), and not deduced from principle. Any decentralized, post-state society, following the collapse of central power, is likely to be a panarchy characterized by a wide variety of local property systems. For them to coexist peacefully, all three property systems must reflect the understanding of their most enlightened proponents. Those favoring each of the property system must be willing to admit that it is not self-evidently true, or at least be willing to acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area.

To avoid violence, some kind of moderation or arbitration is almost certainly necessary. The disputants could agree upon a wise arbiter, one without bias for or against either type of property system, to settle the issue. E.g. Wolf De Voon, who has made it clear that he thinks property amounts more or less to what the neighbors will allow. He would probably judge based on local custom and expectations of the parties involved. E.g. If the factory were located in an area where sticky property dominates, where the capitalist had reasonable expectation of sticky ownership, where the local people expect the same, and the syndicalist workers came in from a 'foreign' culture expecting to pull a fast one, then he'd probably judge in favor of the capitalist. OTOH If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the 'foreign' culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers.

Neither property system can be proved to be correct. Proof requires agreement on a set of axioms. Capitalists and syndicalists don't agree on the axioms concerning property, so proof is impossible. So it's force or arbitration, and we all know which is better in the long run.

It's what we already do...just no state. And your intentions do matter. Why not?

Mutualism is, at base, an experimental approach, with reciprocity and evolving justice as its criteria. The standards for occupancy and use are going to be local and conventional. The straw-man "mutualists will move in if I go out for groceries" stuff is pretty obviously wrong, since this can hardly emerge as a just and mutual strategy, but treating a summer house as absentee ownership seems to me to suffer from much the same misunderstanding. My retired parents have a house on the west coast and a one-room cabin in the east. Both require considerable upkeep to remain habitable and look lived-in, and they still provide most of that upkeep, including some pretty heavy beating-back-the-forest work at the cabin. They hire a neighbor to mow the lawn in the west for the summer, but lots of folks do that who live there year-round. The neighbors in both locations recognize the properties as domiciles belonging to my parents, and there are neighborly relations established both places. Indeed, the summer place has a 50-year history of ownership by my mother's family. They are "summer people," but they are the sole occupants.

[Hierophant]

Then the arbitrary abandonment laws are non-binding, and you have no moral framework for a society.

You do realize you have now declared ALL social rules to be arbitrary and non-binding, including capitalist property rights?

What is the moral framework of a society if not the values of its participants expressed in things like social rules? You tell me!

[Hierophant]

Here you go Brad:

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... rspective/

[Hierophant]

bumpxor so Brad can see it

[MustangGT]

Anti-bumpz to prevent Brad from seeing this proletariat nonsense!

...oh wait