Left Libertarian?

[SimonJester]

I think you're right. Forgive me, it's been a long day.

[victim77]

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.

[lordtlaloc]

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?

[MAM]

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.
 

[Agrarian_Agorist]

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.

[Syock]

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.

[Agrarian_Agorist]

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.

[Syock]

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.

[MAM]

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?

[Agrarian_Agorist]

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.

[SimonJester]

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.

[Agrarian_Agorist]

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.

[SimonJester]

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?

[Agrarian_Agorist]

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.