Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: lordtlaloc on September 11, 2013, 08:39:37 PM



Title: Left Libertarian?
Post by: lordtlaloc on September 11, 2013, 08:39:37 PM
So, i thought i knew what left libertarianism was, (dont like corporations) but i saw C4SS post a video about how to debate "right" libertarians, and in the comments people were discussing "local organizations" and "voluntary democracies" making decisions. This confused me, so i looked into some left lib websites, and one of them mentioned being "for property rights personally, but for communal ownership of the factors of production". Wtf? can someone explain to me what left libertarians believe, and how they handle property rights? thanks in advance.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: victim77 on September 11, 2013, 10:14:01 PM
So, i thought i knew what left libertarianism was, (dont like corporations) but i saw C4SS post a video about how to debate "right" libertarians, and in the comments people were discussing "local organizations" and "voluntary democracies" making decisions. This confused me, so i looked into some left lib websites, and one of them mentioned being "for property rights personally, but for communal ownership of the factors of production". Wtf? can someone explain to me what left libertarians believe, and how they handle property rights? thanks in advance.
Left libertarian encompasses a lot of political philosophies. This is from the website of SEK3's proposed Alliance of the Libertarian left:

Quote
The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists,
geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists,
and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural
intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism
falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building
alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: victim77 on September 11, 2013, 10:15:52 PM
There is no consensus on property rights for Left Libertarians. Most do believe in private property but a sizeable amount does not believe in absentee ownership.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 11, 2013, 10:47:40 PM
Wtf? can someone explain to me what left libertarians believe, and how they handle property rights? thanks in advance.

The problem with pretty much all political thought is that at some point or another, they make an arbitrary line that makes sense to them personally and most others will disagree with at least to some extent.  As soon as they do that, attempting to use logic to figure out what or why someone believes something becomes an exercise in futility. 

They will never nail down the exacts of it because they can't justify illogical thought amongst themselves. 

The only reason we have the illogical messes around the world we currently have is because someone at some point had the weapons and ability to say, "We are doing this my way".


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: MAM on September 11, 2013, 11:35:54 PM
I'm finding that not believing in absentee ownership makes homesteading easier...


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 11, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
I'm finding that not believing in absentee ownership makes homesteading easier...

It also means that you can't really have a nature preserve, or purchase land for future development, or long term log cutting operations.  Depending on duration, most farmland would be fair game too.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 01:49:14 AM
I'm finding that not believing in absentee ownership makes homesteading easier...

It also means that you can't really have a nature preserve, or purchase land for future development, or long term log cutting operations.  Depending on duration, most farmland would be fair game too.

To say nothing of the hunting cabin I want to build a step at a time, on vacation, and eventually retire to.  This would annoy me, having purchased and improved the land, living down in the city all week to pay for the solar panels I'm planning to install this weekend.  I would have to say I'd perceive that as an act of overt, unprovoked aggression and treat it as such.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: lordtlaloc on September 12, 2013, 09:49:01 AM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 11:20:29 AM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 11:38:59 AM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

Molyneux addresses your objections to absentee ownership.  In a society without absentee ownership, one could never leave home, entrepreneurs could not build and maintain roads, factories, and the like, etc.  It would be a primitive shithole of a dystopia, which I'm guessing from your username you'd like.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 12:07:34 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 12:19:19 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

Molyneux addresses your objections to absentee ownership.  In a society without absentee ownership, one could never leave home, entrepreneurs could not build and maintain roads, factories, and the like, etc.  It would be a primitive shithole of a dystopia, which I'm guessing from your username you'd like.

Appealing to authority is not an argument; especially since I'm not Stephan's biggest fan.  He's ok, but nothing special.  Also, if I was a primitivist such as you are accusing me of, then would I even have a computer?  My moniker relates to the fact that I do grow and raise a large portion of my own food; thereby alleviating a dependency on a highly vulnerable system.  I do not find freedom in being completely, helplessly, hopelessly dependent on others.

I think that if people believe in life, liberty, and property then they should accept the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend their own life, liberty, and property and not be completely dependent others for the preservation, protection, and defense of their own life, liberty, and property.  How can dependence and helplessness equal freedom?  If diesel fuel suddenly goes up to $8/gallon, are you confident that you will still have a job, and even if you do, do you think food will be as readily available as it is now?  This scenario is to indicate dependency on things outside of the individual's control; which is not wise.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 12:27:00 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 12:27:41 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

Molyneux addresses your objections to absentee ownership.  In a society without absentee ownership, one could never leave home, entrepreneurs could not build and maintain roads, factories, and the like, etc.  It would be a primitive shithole of a dystopia, which I'm guessing from your username you'd like.

Appealing to authority is not an argument; especially since I'm not Stephan's biggest fan.  He's ok, but nothing special.  Also, if I was a primitivist such as you are accusing me of, then would I even have a computer?  My moniker relates to the fact that I do grow and raise a large portion of my own food; thereby alleviating a dependency on a highly vulnerable system.  I do not find freedom in being completely, helplessly, hopelessly dependent on others.

I think that if people believe in life, liberty, and property then they should accept the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend their own life, liberty, and property and not be completely dependent others for the preservation, protection, and defense of their own life, liberty, and property.  How can dependence and helplessness equal freedom?  If diesel fuel suddenly goes up to $8/gallon, are you confident that you will still have a job, and even if you do, do you think food will be as readily available as it is now?  This scenario is to indicate dependency on things outside of the individual's control; which is not wise.

Are you advocating a world wherein everyone is completely self-sufficient?



Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 12:30:57 PM
... because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership ...

Are you not essentially suggesting democracy?  

Last I checked, we still like contracts.  If I have a contract saying I own something, and another contract saying they work for me, that doesn't mean ownership transfers to them.  

I would have to essentially hire 'scabs' to go do the work the others are suppose to be doing.

The squatters would be committing trespass.  Their attack on me would be attempted murder.  They would then be open to arbitration, or something more violent if they refuse.  Odds are I could send in a defense agency to make them leave with few/no community repercussions such as ostracism.  


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: state hater on September 12, 2013, 12:31:54 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

I can't speak for him, but maybe he thinks something along the lines of "If I either homestead unused land, or buy previously-used land from someone else, and then register that land with my DRO, and every (or nearly every) other DRO recognizes the validity of my ownership due to a system or reciprocity, then theft of my land is prevented without resorting to state authority."  


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 12:48:36 PM
... because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership ...

Are you not essentially suggesting democracy?  

Last I checked, we still like contracts.  If I have a contract saying I own something, and another contract saying they work for me, that doesn't mean ownership transfers to them.  

I would have to essentially hire 'scabs' to go do the work the others are suppose to be doing.

The squatters would be committing trespass.  Their attack on me would be attempted murder.  They would then be open to arbitration, or something more violent if they refuse.  Odds are I could send in a defense agency to make them leave with few/no community repercussions such as ostracism.  


Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

Molyneux addresses your objections to absentee ownership.  In a society without absentee ownership, one could never leave home, entrepreneurs could not build and maintain roads, factories, and the like, etc.  It would be a primitive shithole of a dystopia, which I'm guessing from your username you'd like.

Appealing to authority is not an argument; especially since I'm not Stephan's biggest fan.  He's ok, but nothing special.  Also, if I was a primitivist such as you are accusing me of, then would I even have a computer?  My moniker relates to the fact that I do grow and raise a large portion of my own food; thereby alleviating a dependency on a highly vulnerable system.  I do not find freedom in being completely, helplessly, hopelessly dependent on others.

I think that if people believe in life, liberty, and property then they should accept the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend their own life, liberty, and property and not be completely dependent others for the preservation, protection, and defense of their own life, liberty, and property.  How can dependence and helplessness equal freedom?  If diesel fuel suddenly goes up to $8/gallon, are you confident that you will still have a job, and even if you do, do you think food will be as readily available as it is now?  This scenario is to indicate dependency on things outside of the individual's control; which is not wise.

Are you advocating a world wherein everyone is completely self-sufficient?



Not necessarily, but people should strive for being as self sufficient as possible.  This doesn't mean that people have to build their own iPads; however, knowing how to wouldn't hurt and would actually help in allowing the best products to rise to the top.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 12:54:42 PM
Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.

I don't have to force them to do anything.  As I said, if they refuse to go on their own, they are then open to more violent consequences for being attempted murdering trespassers, and there is nothing that says I have to be violent by myself against them.

Personally I expect an ancap society to be much more monitored than the current world is.  Reputation and voluntary contracts (agreements) are important.  If someone becomes a trespassing attempted murder, I expect it would be very difficult for them to survive.  Who would want to do business with such a person?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 12:57:33 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

I can't speak for him, but maybe he thinks something along the lines of "If I either homestead unused land, or buy previously-used land from someone else, and then register that land with my DRO, and every (or nearly every) other DRO recognizes the validity of my ownership due to a system or reciprocity, then theft of my land is prevented without resorting to state authority."  

The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.

A DRO is a business.  If they stop having voluntary customers, they go away.  If they try to take money by force, they are then criminals and other organizations will be happy to come in and take their place.   

When was the last time you heard of Brinks running off with a truckload of money, or cleaning out a customers home?

They have no incentive to do that. 


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 01:04:52 PM
Some form of democracy is behind all laws.  Whether the laws are created by a State or by some arbitration company, if the people(your neighbors -at the very least) don't support it, then it is no longer legitimate.  You could try to take the squatters to an arbiter but if they don't recognize the authority then you must force that individual to not only accept going to the arbiter, but you must force the said individual to accept any punishment handed down by the arbiter.

Contracts just like laws require the general acceptance of the population to make the contracts legitimate; so that force can be utilize in the upholding of the contracts.  It will be tough going in any major metropolitan area, to get the vast majority to accept the general norms of contracts, and arbiter services in upholding the contracts.

I don't have to force them to do anything.  As I said, if they refuse to go on their own, they are then open to more violent consequences for being attempted murdering trespassers, and there is nothing that says I have to be violent by myself against them.

Personally I expect an ancap society to be much more monitored than the current world is.  Reputation and voluntary contracts (agreements) are important.  If someone becomes a trespassing attempted murder, I expect it would be very difficult for them to survive.  Who would want to do business with such a person?

People deal with murderers everyday.  To ensure that some person who had done you wrong was truly punished either you would have to take action against them or you would have to spend the time and money to try and inform the most amount of people of the transgression.  Either-way, I don't think everything will workout the way most people here think it will.

While you attack someone squatting on property which you claim is your, maybe the neighbors which you've never met because you don't live there, start attacking you and your Defense Agency for attacking the squatters.  It is a matter of perspective, on whether your neighbors know and accept that you are the actual owner or not.  If the neighbors don't recognize you as the owner and you start attacking the squatters, then you may to have to fight the neighbors also.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 12, 2013, 01:09:11 PM
The legitimacy of a DRO or government has to come from the people.  If the people think that DRO's or even just one or more particular DRO(s) are illegitimate then the only thing you can do is use force against those who appose you to validate and enforce your contracts.

A DRO is a business.  If they stop having voluntary customers, they go away.  If they try to take money by force, they are then criminals and other organizations will be happy to come in and take their place.   

When was the last time you heard of Brinks running off with a truckload of money, or cleaning out a customers home?

They have no incentive to do that. 

Suppose you buy property -because it is really cheap- where nobody uses a DRO.  If the local people don't believe in the legitimacy of the DRO, then your only option is to force the neighbors to accept the DRO.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 01:22:03 PM
Suppose you buy property -because it is really cheap- where nobody uses a DRO.  If the local people don't believe in the legitimacy of the DRO, then your only option is to force the neighbors to accept the DRO.

I see no reason for that to be true.  I don't have to accept the legitimacy of Brinks for them to shoot me if I try to steal what they protect or own.  

They are not judge, jury and executioner.  They are simply an extension of your ability to protect your stuff.


People deal with murderers everyday.  To ensure that some person who had done you wrong was truly punished either you would have to take action against them or you would have to spend the time and money to try and inform the most amount of people of the transgression.  Either-way, I don't think everything will workout the way most people here think it will.

They deal with murders every day because in the current society, if someone is out and about, they are considered to have paid their debt.  I have no doubt that there would be some way to track such things, much as there are multiple credit reporting agencies currently. 

If you disagree, okay.  There isn't really a point for us to be arguing potential outcomes for no reason, as we will not agree.

While you attack someone squatting on property which you claim is your, maybe the neighbors which you've never met because you don't live there, start attacking you and your Defense Agency for attacking the squatters.  It is a matter of perspective, on whether your neighbors know and accept that you are the actual owner or not.  If the neighbors don't recognize you as the owner and you start attacking the squatters, then you may to have to fight the neighbors also.

What right or claim would the neighbors have in the fight?  Do you not expect their defense organization to look into it before they go spending money and lives?   War is expensive.  Most things would likely never reach a violent conclusion.  It is bad for business.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.

How long can I go on vacation, or off to earn a living, before someone declares me "absentee"?

Are you claiming that the only thing keeping your neighbor from stealing your house is the Judicial system?  That would seem to be the same claim that Statists make with concern to violence in Anarchism; meaning that the only thing preventing massive violence now is the governmental judicial system.

Not at all.  I'm simply asking for a definition of "absentee", because you said you're not in favor of "absentee ownership".  If I own a hunting cabin I only use a few times a year, is that absentee?  What if I buy and own a large tract of land to leave as a wilderness preserve?  I'm not arguing with you at all, at least not yet, just asking you to define your terms.  I haven't "claimed" anything.  Just asked a question.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: victim77 on September 12, 2013, 04:24:27 PM
Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 04:50:28 PM
Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.

I disagree.  I sit typing this in a rented apartment.  I rent partly for financial reasons and partly because I don't want to buy land in California, I don't think it's a good investment.  So I have voluntarily arranged to rent space from an absentee landlord I've never met, we deal with each other through a professional property management company, and everyone is essentially quite happy.  He's running a business, I'm voluntarily patronizing it, where is problem?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 04:59:20 PM
Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.

The big difference is you don't voluntarily sign a contract with the government for land ownership.  You trade for partial land rental.  People were on the land before governments started to claim it.  They came in, either by force or asked in by some semi-democratic means, and claimed final ownership of all land, despite previous claims to it.  That is how they figure they are allowed to tax and take land when they want to.  

In a society without a government essentially stealing ownership rights, the ownership of the land would actually mean something.  It would be something people shouldn't be able to just come in and take from you (especially in some democratic manner) without consequence.  


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 05:28:27 PM
@Syock,

Not sure what our disagreement is about, if anything.  If you're arguing theft by force is wrong, I agree completely, whether its done by a national government or by squatters.  If you're arguing all absentee ownership amounts to theft, I've given my example above as to why I disagree.  There is nothing immoral or aggressive about investing your honestly accumulated savings in something like a rental property.

I do think sharecropping-type farming will always be less efficient than farmers owning their land, but that's a self-correcting problem, I think, in the absence of a government.

I would, for instance, love to buy land and sell it to sharecroppers on credit. Pay me a fixed payment, rather than a share of your crop, for a finite period of time, at which point I transfer title to the land.  I make more money than the guy who owns sharecropped land because my farmers work harder, and are demonstrably smarter, and they get a better deal because they're working for themselves.  Eventually, sharecropping dies out due to competition.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 12, 2013, 06:47:39 PM
@Syock,

I am all for absentee ownership.  I think posts might be getting mixed.  
_____________________

Homesteading only makes sense to me when applied to land that has no owner.  I think that only would apply to future man-made land beyond national claims, and stuff in space at this point.  


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 12, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
I think you're right. Forgive me, it's been a long day.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: victim77 on September 12, 2013, 08:55:39 PM
Yes, yes...the shitstorm pleases me. In my opinion absentee ownership is hard to pin down. A government is basically the definition of absentee ownership. If you start from there, its not so hard to understand the argument against that. You can justify the gov owning all land for various (illogical) reasons (services, you sign a contract, ect.) but we all know that is bullshit. If you take it down to the renter/landlord level, it is the same thing.

I disagree.  I sit typing this in a rented apartment.  I rent partly for financial reasons and partly because I don't want to buy land in California, I don't think it's a good investment.  So I have voluntarily arranged to rent space from an absentee landlord I've never met, we deal with each other through a professional property management company, and everyone is essentially quite happy.  He's running a business, I'm voluntarily patronizing it, where is problem?
I'm not exactly saying that I agree 100% with the explanation I gave, I was simply trying to outline the argument. I'm still trying to figure it out. But I do believe that a renter should and would have a LOT more say in the property without the state involved.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: lordtlaloc on September 12, 2013, 10:17:47 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.
so, who does this? the people who maintain the crops? the guys who maintain the electric grid and connected security systems? the animal experts? the defense specialists i hired to defend all the above from intruders/thiefs? Why would all of them want to get together and say "yea, that guy that pays our checks. fuck him" if one group, or even one individual started voicing his opinion that "we should own this place", what would stop the rest from shooting me (or the security guards) an email saying "yo this guy is contemplating trying to take over this land". If one of the groups i mentioned above tries to take over, would the other groups want a gardener, or a vet, or a security guard in charge of the land they work on? most of them may have no experience managing a large property.  I also just dont see why i have to physically be there. I have contracts with all the people working this land, they obviously like the way i run it. Am i missing something?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: MAM on September 12, 2013, 10:21:56 PM
I think that's where their economics hits a major snag. They say you can't make a contract selling the fruit of your labour before you've completed the work and that is what work in a factory is. Also there's something about the capitalist not paying the full amount that the workers are owed because of the profit the capitalist keeps it's weird.
 


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 14, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Thanks, victim. Wasn't aware it was that diverse.
Absentee ownership? the definition Im finding is that owning land you dont live on. Whats wrong with that? If i pay some people to work it for me, and some people to protect it, isnt it still "mine"  even if i dont have a house on it? or is there less specific definition im not finding?


Suppose that you have 1000 acres and some of it is used as a farm -growing vegetables- and some of it is used to raise animals and such.  You pay people to work the land and you pay people for security.  One day you go to your 1000 acre property and the people you hired to protect it, start shooting at you.

In your search to find a way to own something which you do not want to actually protect yourself, you have just worked to supply others with 1000 acres of land -which they could not afford to purchase, but unlike you- they are willing to defend; and thereby acquire ownership thereof.  Any method one can think of to try and preserve absentee land ownership one succeeds in creating a precursor to government; because both situations require that the general population agree on ones claim of ownership without actually possession or in-habitation.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian, I just do not believe that it would be sustainable in an anarchist 'society' for people to accept absentee ownership; sooner or later, a government/State would be created to force compliance whit absentee ownership.
so, who does this? the people who maintain the crops? the guys who maintain the electric grid and connected security systems? the animal experts? the defense specialists i hired to defend all the above from intruders/thiefs? Why would all of them want to get together and say "yea, that guy that pays our checks. fuck him" if one group, or even one individual started voicing his opinion that "we should own this place", what would stop the rest from shooting me (or the security guards) an email saying "yo this guy is contemplating trying to take over this land". If one of the groups i mentioned above tries to take over, would the other groups want a gardener, or a vet, or a security guard in charge of the land they work on? most of them may have no experience managing a large property.  I also just dont see why i have to physically be there. I have contracts with all the people working this land, they obviously like the way i run it. Am i missing something?
 

Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 14, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 14, 2013, 05:03:05 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Syock on September 14, 2013, 06:26:59 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: MAM on September 14, 2013, 07:01:23 PM
I think a regimen of continued improvement makes sense otherwise if a guy plants a garden one year does he hold it until his death or some arbitrary time in between?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 09:04:15 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.

If you're not on the property to protect and prevent an illegitimate confiscation of the property, then you don't own it.  People can complain all they want, it wont actually change anything.  Either protect it, or lose it.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 09:13:30 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.

If you're not on the property to protect and prevent an illegitimate confiscation of the property, then you don't own it.  People can complain all they want, it wont actually change anything.  Either protect it, or lose it.

And again I'll ask.  How long can I leave before the property is abandoned?  Can I go to the grocery for two hours? Work for 10hrs? A two week vacation?  How long must I be gone before its ok to steal my house?  I'm not just asking about enforcement, it's also a moral question, IMO.  Your argument that people own whatever they can defend with force means that the fed gov really does own all it claims to, since it can, without question, defend it all with force.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 15, 2013, 10:07:33 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.

If you're not on the property to protect and prevent an illegitimate confiscation of the property, then you don't own it.  People can complain all they want, it wont actually change anything.  Either protect it, or lose it.

And again I'll ask.  How long can I leave before the property is abandoned?  Can I go to the grocery for two hours? Work for 10hrs? A two week vacation?  How long must I be gone before its ok to steal my house?  I'm not just asking about enforcement, it's also a moral question, IMO.  Your argument that people own whatever they can defend with force means that the fed gov really does own all it claims to, since it can, without question, defend it all with force.

I suppose that would depend on ones neighbors; how much they like and respect you, and whether the community reciprocates property protection or accepts the legitimacy of defense agencies protecting properties.  These things would all have to be worked out with your neighbors beforehand. In the absence of government the communities would necessarily have to be closer.


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: SimonJester on September 15, 2013, 10:13:55 PM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.

If you're not on the property to protect and prevent an illegitimate confiscation of the property, then you don't own it.  People can complain all they want, it wont actually change anything.  Either protect it, or lose it.

And again I'll ask.  How long can I leave before the property is abandoned?  Can I go to the grocery for two hours? Work for 10hrs? A two week vacation?  How long must I be gone before its ok to steal my house?  I'm not just asking about enforcement, it's also a moral question, IMO.  Your argument that people own whatever they can defend with force means that the fed gov really does own all it claims to, since it can, without question, defend it all with force.

I suppose that would depend on ones neighbors; how much they like and respect you, and whether the community reciprocates property protection or accepts the legitimacy of defense agencies protecting properties.  These things would all have to be worked out with your neighbors beforehand. In the absence of government the communities would necessarily have to be closer.

Umm... You oppose absentee ownership, right?  How do you oppose something you don't seem able to define?  It depends on how much my neighbors like me?  In your utopia, I lose rights for being unpopular?  If that's the case, they weren't ever rights at all.  What if my neighbors hate my guts?  Maybe they don't even wait 'till I'm at the grocery store, they just bust in and throw me out.  Do they have that right?


Title: Re: Left Libertarian?
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on September 16, 2013, 06:23:22 AM
Maybe the people working your land enjoy their pay, but then they find out that you receive 3x as much money as they -collectively- do, and you're never around.  Maybe they get angry, so they just take the property and keep 100% of the money.  A 1000 acre farm can operate without any further financial input; and what input they may require could be easily gained by selling products made on the farm, including baby animals.

This already happens in democratic governments.  You are not making an argument for homesteading, just what people can do when they decide to be thieves and violate the NAP.

Without the general population accepting and agreeing to the NAP, then it really -for all practical purposes- doesn't exist.  The general population agreeing and accepting things as for the benefit of the population are the precursor to laws, and contracts are a manifestation of laws.  Without a government to write laws, then you would have to revert to the consensus of the local population -at the very least- just for the recognition of the claim.  Without the legitimacy of the approval of the population -a de facto law- then it leaves the possibility -highly in the urban areas- of people fighting for land and property without any recognized justification other than their word and maybe a piece of paper.

My previous statement stands.  That is not an argument for homesteading absentee owners property.

If you're not on the property to protect and prevent an illegitimate confiscation of the property, then you don't own it.  People can complain all they want, it wont actually change anything.  Either protect it, or lose it.

And again I'll ask.  How long can I leave before the property is abandoned?  Can I go to the grocery for two hours? Work for 10hrs? A two week vacation?  How long must I be gone before its ok to steal my house?  I'm not just asking about enforcement, it's also a moral question, IMO.  Your argument that people own whatever they can defend with force means that the fed gov really does own all it claims to, since it can, without question, defend it all with force.

I suppose that would depend on ones neighbors; how much they like and respect you, and whether the community reciprocates property protection or accepts the legitimacy of defense agencies protecting properties.  These things would all have to be worked out with your neighbors beforehand. In the absence of government the communities would necessarily have to be closer.

Umm... You oppose absentee ownership, right?  How do you oppose something you don't seem able to define?  It depends on how much my neighbors like me?  In your utopia, I lose rights for being unpopular?  If that's the case, they weren't ever rights at all.  What if my neighbors hate my guts?  Maybe they don't even wait 'till I'm at the grocery store, they just bust in and throw me out.  Do they have that right?

If one believes that they have rights and that those rights are inherent, then it becomes incumbent for the individual to accept the responsibility to be -in the very least- the last line of defense against violation of said rights.

I can define absentee ownership just fine; it appears that those proponents of absentee ownership cannot keep their definition consistent.  To own something -usually land property- even in the absence of physically inhabiting the land property.  However, the proponents say that this can only happen after the land property has been homesteaded into having a title of ownership.  If this is the case, then it just illustrates the limited viability and utility of absentee ownership, to be such that the proponent just wants to be able to own land property without having to actually utilize or inhabit the property.