[Melodramatic]

Although there might not many posters who know enough of the subject to help me, I wanted to try to ask a few questions regarding Mutualist theories of property. Regardless, any input would be more than welcomed.

I have yet to gain a clear understanding regarding the way Mutualists define legitimate property. The key of it is that property is based on possession, on use and occupancy, something that makes sense to me.

The articles I've read have firstly stated the following: all land must be used in order to be owned. This is to prevent the usage of land titles to control access to resources, a form of monopoly. The two main implementations of said monopoly, as I understood, are rent (taking fees to access a land) and depriving resources form the market (owning land in order to benefit indirectly form it not being used). The latter I deem irrelevant for this discussion, as it does not even comply for the most basic definition of use.

I have a my problem begins with the question: how will the rent of absentee landlords be eliminated? I have read that Mutualists suggest that without state intervention the prices of rent will fall by themselves to the costs of maintenance. This as I understand is connected to the abolishing of the banking monopoly, which keeps interest artificially high above the cost of production, which is almost zero. The logic of the relation is correct, after all rented property is just a loan and rent just a form of interest. The problem I see with this is that it technically accepts Lockean property, titles on unused land, and falls the the same problems of that system (mainly, scarcity).

Alternatively, abolishing all rent immediately (so to speak) seems to have its own problems... It seems rather unintuitive to me. Abolishing unused land titles directly will do well to deal with the problems of scarcity based exploitation. but if extended to all forms of property rather than just land, this will also restrict more logical forms of rent. If a man has a car and he never uses it on weekends, it makes sense that he can rent it during that time, rather than sell it... or if a man offers a service which he maintains is that not also a from rent? not to speak of banking, where by does definitions of is free to take another intentionally unused money...

It seems that the first works best for general property and second best for land... which makes me ask myself whether something in my definition of property is lacking... Any thoughts?

[copaceticmind]

It seems as though the question you are asking is:

Why is land different from all other kinds of property?

My answer is that it's not. Many people get caught up in land being special for some reason. My guess is because it is a limited resource that nearly everyone values highly. It can seem unfair that one person is able to own a piece of it just to rent it to another. He owns it without directly using it while profiting from others using it without the ability to own it.

I think you are confused because of a cognitive dissonance. You have bias that land is somehow special and should be treated differently from all other property, but you can find no logical reason to support this thought. Your search for an answer which supports the mutualist theory of land rights is a noble one, and I would be very interested in what philosophy could prove it, but I believe your search is vain.

Land is a resource just like any other. Your analogy of banking is works very well for seeing it from this perspective. Gold is a limited resource just like land. There is only a certain amount in the world, and although more is sometimes found and extracted for use, this amount remains fairly constant. It is exactly the same with land. If there is something inherently immoral about loaning land and collecting rent then it follows that there should be something inherently immoral about loaning gold and collecting interest.

But there is nothing immoral about it. One person owns gold/land that he is not currently using. Another person seeks the use of land/gold without ownership. There is nothing immoral about the two coming together to reach an agreement between them that benefits both. Concerning the person who desires use without ownership, there are two reasons for this. Lack of desire and lack of ability.

Many companies and individuals have plenty of money to make certain purchases, but will decide that it would be better to keep the cash they have and get a loan for something they need. Likewise, many have the ability to own land, but, usually for reasons of financial leverage, would rather rent. There is no exploitation here.

Is it exploitative to collect rent from someone only renting because of the inability own land. Absolutely not. There are many people without the money to buy a piece of land outright. In fact, there are very few people in the world that can. Of these people there are some who are unable to obtain a loan. Surely you would not consider it exploitation to loan land to someone who couldn't own it. These people, without the ability to own or rent a place to live, would become homeless. The problem is exacerbated if loaning land and/or money are both considered immoral as this would result in everyone without the resources to obtain a place to live becoming homeless.

So let's say it isn't immoral to loan gold, but is immoral to loan land. Is it wrong to deny a person a loan of gold to obtain land? Even if this person has proven time and again that all debts are never repaid? Even if a loan might as well be a gift? These people require the existence of absentee landlords. Surely, you would not consider this relationship to be exploitative.

[Melodramatic]

My answer is that it's not.

Oh I'm quite sure it is. firstly, you deprive man of any resource, whether it is water, food or air. but when man is deprived of land, he has not even the choice of dying, only selling himself to slavery. That is because land is different, it is not a natural kind of property, but a title. It is a concept intuitive to use, but still artificial. I believe its origin is with the first forms of state, which makes sense as land is the state.

I will repeat my argument against Lockean property, that it simply privatizes the state. if owning land requires no real commitment to it, all land will be eventually owned. As said land is scarce, and will eventually force people to enslave themselves to some landlord, exactly the same as a free man moving to a state. than the argument will be the same as given the anarchists so annoyingly, the same old strawman, "if you don't like it, move". Perhaps to some forest the capitalists haven't cut down yet or to Antarctica. The similarities are not made up, for the only theoretical difference between Lockean anarchism and the state is that while the state was built with slaves and blood, the a-cap states will be built with exploitative wage labor and money. Its eerie, really. its seems like a logical evolution form the capitalist perspective, if taking the rest of the political changes since the industrial revolution into account.

Land is different, in its meaning. it is the saying that you have total jurisdiction over a geographical area. It has existed naturally, of course. The area around a mans home or farm. but it was made an institution only as a part of the slavery of man, called the state.

If there is something inherently immoral about loaning land and collecting rent then it follows that there should be something inherently immoral about loaning gold and collecting interest.

Morality is not the issue here. My goal is the abolition of state. Personally I like neither, while they don't seem outright evil...

There are many people without the money to buy a piece of land outright. In fact, there are very few people in the world that can.

Why should they pay? why should I pay to use a land no one else uses? justify the title, don't just assume it justified. Rent is exploitation as people shouldn't pay for the land on which their homes are built in the first place... but indeed other purchases, some as the structures themselves, rent is possible. I understand that Mutualists believe this solvable using mutual credit... I am not entirely convinced, but it seems plausible...

[SecretSquirrel]

copacetic, land is different from chattel property. I am not sure of the correct way to approach land ownership yet, but it is not the same that is for sure.

[copaceticmind]

howso?

[copaceticmind]

Why should they pay? why should I pay to use a land no one else uses? justify the title, don't just assume it justified.

They should pay because they do not own the property. Legitimate ownership is not based solely on use, and you don't think so either except in the case of land. Why is that?

Since we both agree that ownership of all other property is retained even when the right of use is transferred, then the burden of proof is on you to show that a title to land is not justified in the case of non-use, not on me to prove that land is somehow an exception to the rule.

[Melodramatic]

They should pay because they do not own the property.

Indeed they do not own the land, it is unowned. That's my point, when you say that I am taking away the option of rent therefore preventing land from people who do not have enough money to buy it, you miss the main point. If land is based on use, than you can't sell it just like you can't rent it. I do not prohibit selling, but if it would be made irrelevant. If someone stops using the land, and has no intention to continue the land becomes unowned and there is no one to pay to. One can, however, pay another to stop using a piece of land, as a natural part of market dynamics.

Why is that?

Land is different. It is a title, it is a state. By basing it on use I practically abolish it, and therefore abolish the state.

Since we both agree that ownership of all other property is retained even when the right of use is transferred, then the burden of proof is on you to show that a title to land is not justified in the case of non-use, not on me to prove that land is somehow an exception to the rule.

I have explained it in detail in my previous post, land is different. property means nothing, for all property is based on land. it is the question of land which makes one freedom or another slavery.

[copaceticmind]

This is where it seems as though you have lost touch with logic and reasoning.

Indeed they do not own the land, it is unowned.... If land is based on use, than you can't sell it just like you can't rent it.

You seem to have completely glazed over some of my previous statements. Legitimate ownership of property (with the exception of land, in your opinion) is not based solely on use. It is also based on title.

A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as they see fit.

I know this definition come from a not-always-reliable source, but I completely agree and see no problems with this way of putting it. You will have to somehow explain how a title to land is a state.

By basing it on use I practically abolish it, and therefore abolish the state.

If your whole argument to why land is different is based on this statement then you are saying that land should be different from all other property as a means to an end. I would much rather hear a reason which is the conclusion to a series of arguments based on fundamental principles and sound logic.

[Melodramatic]

You seem to have completely glazed over some of my previous statements

Which statements?

Legitimate ownership of property (with the exception of land, in your opinion) is not based solely on use. It is also based on title.

Indeed, if you mean by title what I am guessing you mean, but we are discussing land... you claimed that I am preventing accesses to land by preventing rent, I claimed this is not true because land won't need to be bought in the first place. That is all.

You will have to somehow explain how a title to land is a state.

I did so thoroughly in my above posts... was I not clear?

[copaceticmind]

I was considering going further with this debate, but I think we need to revert to some basics.

No you haven't effectively communicated why land titles = state. States do create, buy, sell, confiscate, and in general deal in terms of titles, but this doesn't mean states are necessary for land titles to exist. Please explain further why you believe land titles necessitate a state.

[eugenekop]

I also don't understand why land is different. An owner of a land does a lot to maintain its attraction. He takes care of the environment in the land, deals with neighbors, defends the land, builds roads and bridges, builds dams, maintains sewage and electricity lines. Land must have a defined ownership because very few people have the funds or are willing to invest so much in a piece of land.

[Melodramatic]

No you haven't effectively communicated why land titles = state.

Ok, so I shall do that. here is a piece I found in some a-syndicalist site a few days ago, in an unrelated search, that explains my point exquisitely.

The similarity between the state and capital (private property) can, ironically, be found in the works of leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murry Rothbard. According to Rothbard, the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial area." This is obviously a form of rulership. However, he also argues that "obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 170, p. 173] Which, to state the obvious, means that both the state and property is marked by an "ultimate decision-making power" over a given territory. The only "difference" is that Rothbard claims the former is "just" (i.e. "justly" acquired) and the latter is "unjust" (i.e. acquired by force).

In effect both have the exact same definition. The difference lay's in the acquisition. Not only is this "difference" absurd as all titles are already based on force, given by a conqueror, but it means that even a "just" title is still a state, simply one acquired using wealth or labor (the latter might exist for a short while but will eventually the former will be sole ruler). Rather than conqueror states, you will have private states which one can buy for a sum. Thus anarcho-capitalism does not abolish the state at all, but privatizes it.

but this doesn't mean states are necessary for land titles to exist.

Ah, but as I said above it is much worse than that.