The following was originally a note on Facebook. I’m re-posting it here for sake of convenience in preparing future followups.
This is a continuation of what I was saying about property in comments on one of Barry’s status updates. Since it also provides some context for Dave in a seperate but similar conversation that I haven’t composed a thorough reply for yet, I’m also tagging him in this note (as well as others, of varying opinions).
Barry started things off with the following quote:
“(Private) property is the domination of an individual, or a coalition of individuals, over things; it is not the claim of any person or persons to the use of things - this is (possession), a very different matter. Property means the monopoly of… wealth, the right to prevent others using it, whether the owner needs it or not.” - Charlotte Wilson
I then commented:
“Very briefly, the offered distinction between ‘property’ and ‘possession’ is only one way to explain the matter of both justice and injustice being associated with property relations under statism.
Another one is based on examination of who is said to own what and why they are said to supposedly do so — to sort ownership claims into valid and invalid ones (with valid ones deriving from labor and invalid ones deriving from state granted privilege).”
Barry then said:
“Please explain what you mean in more detail. Let’s assume there is no state involved for the moment.. what then is the difference in your mind between private property and possession?”
To which I replied:
“That would be the difference between fruit and oranges. Usufruct (i.e. ‘possession’) is basically a type of ownership. If you don’t want to call owned goods ‘property’, that’s okay — but the consensed standards still amount to an understanding or set of rules (however vague or specific suits local consensus) as to who ‘properly’ can make decisions about what [I should have perhaps said 'which material resources' rather than simply 'what']. And that amounts to a de facto property system as I define property.”
I should now probably try to clarify some more by adding the following…
First, I’ve made a point of mostly NOT using the term “private property”, instead saying simply “property”, for the past few years for two reasons:
1) In the positive sense that the term is used by some who have influenced my thinking, it’s a redundancy. Private in the sense of non-state is the opposite of state or “public” property in that framework — and since the state as a criminal gang can’t legitimately own anything in my view, any valid property claim is “private”, even property held collectively by non-state (i.e. voluntary) associations. Note carefully, BTW, that this BY NO MEANS implies that all that is said to be “private property” under statism is an ethically valid property claim. Rather, much of it is stolen property in the hands of a state-allied ruling class.
2) I’m well aware that many use the term “private property” to mostly point to the invalid property claims I mentioned above. If I want to debate what I see as our *actual* differences of opinion, I have to be aware of and work around terminology issues that might make those differences seem larger than what I think they actually are.
So, anyway, I would classify usufruct as one type of property system. It would be a closer approximation to justice than what exists under statism. However, I personally advocate what I see as an even closer approximation to justice. If I was arbitrating a dispute between two parties that both wanted to contract my services in that regard, I could just as easily apply a usufruct standard if that’s what they both wanted, though. While it’s partly correct to call what I advocate “private property” in the sense that it’s a couple of iterations further down the road from where it started as classical liberal or Lockean property theory, it’s also partly incorrect to do so in the sense that doing so obscures its similarities with usufruct. In my view, anyway, they would have an at least 90% overlap in terms of real world results if either standard was applied consistently. But, yes, I do see what I advocate (Rothbardian property theory, as contextually modified by Konkin’s theories of revolution and class) as more ethically precise, a closer approximation to justice, than usufruct or “possession”.
Both usufruct and Rothbardian property theory assert that ownership claims derive from inherent human rights, regardless of the state’s opinion of who ought to own what. The notion of human rights indicates that, generally, those who produce have best claim to what they produce. In short, ownership derives from labor.
The difference between the two is that where usufruct says ownership derives from initial and ongoing use, Rothbardian property theory basically just points to initial use. As Kevin Carson has pointed out, though, this really just means the two property frameworks are just points on a spectrum of opinion over what ought to constitute abandonment of property. Most advocates of usufruct don’t seem to think you should lose your stuff if you walk away from it for five minutes. Likewise, if Rothbardian property theory was the general consensus there would still be some sort of standard that developed for handling clear cases of abandonment.
Notable, also, is that either property framework provides a basis for the revolutionary redistribution of property. Link: http://agorism.info/_media/ma1.pdf
Additionally, in response to further objections from Barry, I wrote in comments on the note:
Your objections appear to go back to the assumption that “capitalism” in the sense of a system of oppression characterized by monopolization of capital derives from exchange (at least, where labor is exchanged).
My position is that systematic monopolization of wealth by an oppressor class can only derive from its ongoing forcible transfer by a socially legitimized means of compulsion (i.e. a state). Only in that context can wealth be monopolized to such an extent that exchange itself is called into question because the terms of such bargains can then be dictated.
If one’s only option is to work for “the man”, it’s because other options have been violently denied to you — not because there’s anything intrinsically wrong with exchanging labor for something else.
ADDENDUM: I ought to perhaps add that where I said above:
My position is that systematic monopolization of wealth by an oppressor class can only derive from its ongoing forcible transfer by a socially legitimized means of compulsion (i.e. a state).
…that this follows from a Misesean praxeological understanding of transactions. In order for an exchange to occur, both parties have to perceive a gain in value to be achieved for themselves in carrying out the exchange, else they wouldn’t bother to exchange. Purely free exchange is, by definition, a win-win scenario. Only state granted privilege can systematically compel exchanges to occur mostly to the benefit of just one party to a transaction and to little or no benefit to the other party who has little other choice. As Rothbard noted, if I recall correctly, monopolization is entirely state driven.
