[Arie]

What is the difference between a privately owned estate in an anarchy, and government/state control of the same territory? I can think of two potential differences:

1. Presumably, private property is justly acquired, and government control is not.
2. Any resident on a private estate should be free to leave.

But I'd support any State that justly acquired its property, and I support letting any resident of a state leave. In this case, the difference becomes purely semantic, a preference for one terminology over another.

This begs the question of what is considered to be justly acquired property, which I think is more to the point than "state control vs private property in anarchy". I believe there's a natural limit to the amount of property one can justly acquire. To believe otherwise is akin to believing in the divine descendancy of kings -- squarely in the realm of faith. Therefore the size of the state over which a non-democratic government has control is an indication of injustice. But the same applies to private owners of very large estates, particularly land on which others reside. So again, the core issue is what constitutes justly acquired property.

[SecretSquirrel]

First of all, that is not what "begging the question" means.

Second of all, if you ask 100 anarchists or libertarians to define a system of justice in initial acquisition, you will get nearly 100 different replies or perhaps none.

Justice in Transfer is easy to define, but initial acquisition is very very tricky. Some would say that it is not possible except to just arbitrarily grandfather in all possession of property and upgrade it to legitimate ownership at a given time. From that point on, everyone would be bound by the principles of justice in transfer.

Alternatively, a collapse of civilisation or a massive catastrophe could serve to do the same. I am an anarchist through and through, but that is the only way I can see anarchy arising. I do not under any circumstance support armed insurrection unless the government of the USA gets a lot more dictatorial or the vast majority become anarchists as well.

[Arie]

First of all, that is not what "begging the question" means.

Thanks, I used it incorrectly. I meant "leads to the question", or "raises the question". I hope that was clear from the context.

Justice in Transfer is easy to define, but initial acquisition is very very tricky. Some would say that it is not possible except to just arbitrarily grandfather in all possession of property and upgrade it to legitimate ownership at a given time. From that point on, everyone would be bound by the principles of justice in transfer.

That's one option. Another is granting that people own what they earn, what they create, but land or natural resources were not created by anyone, and either are should not be owned or should be equally shared.
Let's take the first one. If Anarchy means that the owners are free to bequeath or give (or not) to, or trade with whomever they chose, initial injustice, even if not clear or agreed upon, can persist forever.

BTW I was not familiar with this sub-forum and posted before I read some prior threads, particularly the "Anarcho Capitalism Query" which addressed some of the same issues. As I mentioned in my post, I think the core issue is legitimate ownership, i.e. who should legitimately control what. I'd like to avoid going astray because of terminology (whether capitalist, anarchist, or statist).

[Eran]

Arie,
I agree with the premise in to OP.

As for the statement that "there's a natural limit to the amount of property one can justly acquire", it is not clear from the context whether you mean property rights in natural resources (most specifically land, which defines "sovereignty"), or property in general.

I think I would agree with the statement in the context of real-estate. Land is a factor of production which will be virtually impossible to monopolize over significant geographical areas.

If you are thinking of property in general, property is not so much "acquired" as it is "created". A person can become very wealthy, but only while making the rest of society even wealthier. Very importantly, people don't get rich at other's expense, but only by serving other people's preferences. Bill Gates might be very wealthy, but that is only because he helped create a huge amount of value for humanity through the propagation of moderately-priced and highly useful software.

With economic growth, capital investments and ever lengthening production processes, the fraction of wealth associated with raw natural resources keeps dropping. Consequently, any initial injustice in the ownership of natural resources is likely to diminish, rather than persist.

We have seen that in Britain, where aristocratic land owners, while dominating the economic upper class a few centuries ago, are now a negligible part of that class.

My impression is that only few of the wealthiest people in the world (setting aside heads of state, corrupt or not) have not created their wealth.

If you look at 19th century America, you will see several individuals become very rich, but no one person ever acquired a significant amount of land (in the context of the country as a whole).

[Arie]

As for the statement that "there's a natural limit to the amount of property one can justly acquire", it is not clear from the context whether you mean property rights in natural resources (most specifically land, which defines "sovereignty"), or property in general.

In this thread, we're focusing on land (which I use in a generic sense, to include natural resources, bodies of water, etc., but not all property).

I think I would agree with the statement in the context of real-estate. Land is a factor of production which will be virtually impossible to monopolize over significant geographical areas.

I think so too, if we're assuming fair or legitimate acquisition.

If you are thinking of property in general, property is not so much "acquired" as it is "created".

I don't agree. Certainly property can be acquired. I'll accept the notion of creating property as it is understood, but note that it is a somewhat more abstract notion. It might be more accurate to say property can be manipulated into new forms, rather than created.

A person can become very wealthy, but only while making the rest of society even wealthier. Very importantly, people don't get rich at other's expense, but only by serving other people's preferences.

Again I'm assuming you mean if there's no unfair or illegitimate acquisition. Even in that case, It's far from self evident to me. There's a complex of deals and negotiations before the product ever gets to the final user, who votes with their money, and not very precisely, I might add.

Bill Gates might be very wealthy, but that is only because he helped create a huge amount of value for humanity through the propagation of moderately-priced and highly useful software.

I don't buy this at all. Bill gates is a great businessman, but there's nothing created by Microsoft that was not done better, cheaper, and earlier by someone else. Borland produced great cheap compilers. There were better operating systems, GUIs and browsers long before Microsoft made its entrees, and those are still better. Microsoft made good distribution deals, and was able to position itself well within the industry. This has nothing to do with final user preference. An analogy would be an election -- the people "choose" between candidates, but only those that managed to be in the running, not necessarily the "best" -- there's a political type of game that has very little to do with productivity or quality, and much of the "competition" is about defaming the competitors.

With economic growth, capital investments and ever lengthening production processes, the fraction of wealth associated with raw natural resources keeps dropping. Consequently, any initial injustice in the ownership of natural resources is likely to diminish, rather than persist.

Not so. Suppose I own the land on which a successful manufacturer or store operates. His success has made my property more valuable, since I now realize that more money can be made on it than I first realized. Therefore, I raise the rent. The land is now more valuable.
A raw resource which has little use has a low value. But when a new innovation makes new use of it, it becomes more valuable. The benefit of this increase goes to the resource owner, without his involvement in it use.

We have seen that in Britain, where aristocratic land owners, while dominating the economic upper class a few centuries ago, are now a negligible part of that class.

I don't know the history, but I suspect that this class has lost some of its legal protections and political privilege, and land ownership became available to others, but there are still land owners and non-owners. Just a population shift.

My impression is that only few of the wealthiest people in the world (setting aside heads of state, corrupt or not) have not created their wealth.

That depends on what kind of activity is considered "creating" wealth. It is certainly not my impression.

If you look at 19th century America, you will see several individuals become very rich, but no one person ever acquired a significant amount of land (in the context of the country as a whole).

Many very rich people do not convert most of their wealth to land ownership. Which brings me back to your earlier question. Yes, I do think there are limits to how much wealth (not just land) one can justly acquire. But my focus here was about land and the idea of seeing a state as a private land owning corporation in an anarchy (of such corporations).

[Eran]

I have confused "property" with "wealth". Apologies.

It is wealth rather than property which is primarily created. The amount of physical property in the world changes only very slowly, while the amount of wealth grows rapidly, due to people finding better and cleverer ways of rearranging their property in more useful ways for themselves and (mainly) for others.

I don't buy this at all. Bill gates is a great businessman, but there's nothing created by Microsoft that was not done better, cheaper, and earlier by someone else.

I should have picked a better, less controversial example. Maybe Steve Jobs. Or the Google guys. In any event, in a society in which all transactions are voluntary, nobody would engage in a transaction unless they felt (at the time they chose to act) that they would be better off (by their own standards, as viewed at that time) than if they didn't transact.

Now people can (and often do) make mistakes. People sometimes regret having transacted in a given way. However, I still believe that allowing people to make their own choices is more likely to result in outcomes that those people prefer than by having those options restricted or set by third parties.

A wealthy businessman then achieved his wealth through a series (sometimes a long and complex one) of transactions, in each of which his counterparts felt they profited (ex-ante). If the process took a long time (as it usually does), competition would surely have sprung, requiring the businessman to continue to come up with products that consumers prefer, not just to doing nothing, but also to those products offered by his competitors. The reasons for the preference could be quite varied. They may include better quality, lower price, higher reputation, convenience, safety, etc.

The weighing of various considerations is entirely personal. But however they did so, the consumers continued to choose to buy Mr. Gate's products over those of the competition.

I agree with your characterisation of the political system. I would point out two differences, one of degree and one of principle, between the political and the commercial realms.

As a matter of degree, the political system often introduces very high barriers to entry. After all, to sell a product, it is enough to persuade a small group of people to buy. To win elections, you have to persuade a very large fraction of voters to support you. Now admittedly with some products (network products), an established brand has a strong staying power. That's why the difference is one of degree.

As a matter of principle, in the political arena, people are free to make decisions without expecting those decisions to impact them personally. After all, your vote will virtually never determine the result of the elections. You are free to vote without seriously considering the trade-offs that that vote represents. That is not the case with consumption choices, where you immediately and personally pay the cost (and reap the benefits) of your choice.

Suppose I own the land on which a successful manufacturer or store operates. His success has made my property more valuable, since I now realize that more money can be made on it than I first realized. Therefore, I raise the rent. The land is now more valuable.

The successful manufacturer can (and often does) move his operations to be located in cheaper areas. It happens all the time. As a result, the land value as a fraction of the overall value of the operation will continue to fall. That is slightly less the case in dense urban areas, where the location benefits are great. However, overall, I would still claim that my statement is correct - land represents a diminishing fraction of wealth in society.

I don't know the history, but I suspect that this class has lost some of its legal protections and political privilege, and land ownership became available to others, but there are still land owners and non-owners. Just a population shift.

But that's critical - the initial (unjust) distribution of land ownership has not been maintained. Land is now owned by people who purchased it from its original (unjust) owners, largely using wealth that they created. The current distribution of land ownership has lower and lower correlation with the original (unjust) distribution. Rather, it is correlated with people's productivity in the intervening years. Over time, I assert, we will arrive at a distribution of land ownership that is practically independent of the original distribution. At that point, the original injustice will cease to play any effective role in society.

[Arie]

Eran, thankyou for a thoughtful response. Your underlying belief is that transactions on the whole lead to more just distributions, because in spite of some issues like dishonesty, misunderstanding or misinformation, the parties involved each thought they benefit, at the time. This is of course preferable to a rigid preordained and blatant system of class privilege like feudalism. We still have some of that through inheritance. I'm not necessarily opposed to inheritance, but just pointing out a dilemma.

However, the complex chain of negotiations I was alluding to also involve collusion and agreements to obstruct outside competitors which, while adding value to the participants, detract value from the customer, from the economy as a whole. The analogy would be to an athletic game, where obstruction and misdirection play a large role in who wins. It is no coincidence that salesmen and businessman often have a competitive sports mentality, above an artistic or creative sensibility. Even their creativity is often directed to improving their obstruction and misdirection skills.

One of the most lucrative professions is being an attorney. Their function is very important to the people they represent. They affect distribution (of benefits, punishments, wealth) but not growth. And the results are based on their persuasion skills, often more so than on the merits of their respective contending cases.

A salesman's ability to persuade, misdirect and misinform a client or a customer benefits the salesman, not the customer, even if he is persuaded because of his instinctive inclination to trust and assume that people are basically decent. There's a gray area past which a salesman becomes a con-man.

Also the trading or negotiating parties can be greatly mismatched because of their respective a-priori situations, needs, dependencies, and poverty of choices. Even in sports we match opponents, appealing to a basic sense of fairness. In my opinion, such fairness is even more important in real life than in a game.

In short, I don't share your sanguine believe in the legitimacy of trade as the primary determinant of wealth distribution, though I do agree that it is more open and flexible than a caste system.

Finally, I don't believe someone who is incapable of contributing anything to anyone else for whatever reason does not deserve a living. I see the quality of life of each member of the community as a goal, not merely because of their contributions to others. Our purpose is not just to serve others, but also to be the ones being served. We are not just tools, we are also the goals. If someone has nothing to offer, to trade, I still believe that as a member of the community he has a right to share some of what God or nature has provided, as well as the benefits that were created by inventors, some long dead, for the good of others, including the helpless. I certainly believe people should be rewarded for their contributions, but I don't believe they should be punished (through deprivation) for not contributing.

[Eran]

However, the complex chain of negotiations I was alluding to also involve collusion and agreements to obstruct outside competitors which, while adding value to the participants, detract value from the customer, from the economy as a whole.

In a free society, collusions and agreements cannot truly obstruct outside competitors. Members of a cartel can agree, for example, to fix prices. However, they cannot block the entry of competitors.

If you have something else in mind, can you give an example?

An athletic game is a bad analogy for the economy. For one thing, by construction, an athletic game only has one winner. It is a zero-sum game. Not so the economy. For another thing, an athletic game has fixed rules. Not so the economy. In the economy, you can have multiple winners. You can have both sides profitting from an action. And the "rules" keep getting re-invented.

Attorneys are not typically engaged in zero-sum games either. With the exception of trial lawyers, most attorneys are involved in drafting and negotiating agreements, either to enable mutually-profitable activities, or to avoid costly litigation. In both cases, their activities are mutually-beneficial.

I agree there is a grey area between being a legitimate sales-person and a con-man. But the same is true with every activity. It is certainly true with politics and politicians. There is a grey area between truth and lie. It is unavoidable.

Finally, I don't believe someone who is incapable of contributing anything to anyone else for whatever reason does not deserve a living.

Neither do I. My point would be that such a person has to be supported out of the good will of people like you and me, people who share our moral perspective. NOT by society using physical force to compel unwilling members to contribute towards the support of such a person.

God or nature do not provide much of anything - that's why surviving in a state of nature is very hard work. A person who is incapable of contributing anything to anyone in a modern society would die very quickly if they had to rely on what God or nature provided. As for the benefits of inventors, those are equally available to all.

People are not being "punished" for not contributing. Punishment is an action of actively taking away something to which you are otherwise entitled. The default "state of nature" of Man is one in which he must struggle to survive, even with full access to the gifts of God and nature. By cooperating with other people, that struggle is made much easier, but society must still produce in order to allow any of its members to survive. Those who do not produce must rely on the good will of producers. It is illegitimate (imo) to use physical force to compel those producers to help the non-producers.

[Arie]

In a free society, collusions and agreements cannot truly obstruct outside competitors. Members of a cartel can agree, for example, to fix prices. However, they cannot block the entry of competitors.

If you have something else in mind, can you give an example?

In a free society companies can form alliances which, by definition, reduce if not eliminate competition, to the detriment of the customer. Not all entering competitors can be situated to be equally contending, e.g equally known or accessible to all customers.

An athletic game is a bad analogy for the economy. For one thing, by construction, an athletic game only has one winner. It is a zero-sum game. Not so the economy. For another thing, an athletic game has fixed rules. Not so the economy. In the economy, you can have multiple winners. You can have both sides profitting from an action. And the "rules" keep getting re-invented.

Typically we think of competitive athletic games this way, but games are also leisure and entertainment activities, like children playing games, without fixed rules. Even in these games, we expect the participants to play fair, and not take advantage of unmatched play mates, so the analogy applies with these games as well. Games generally do model, albeit simplistically, aspects of real life, including economic life. Therefore, the prevalence of competition and issues of fairness in games reflect the prevalence of these issues in the economy.

Attorneys are not typically engaged in zero-sum games either. With the exception of trial lawyers, most attorneys are involved in drafting and negotiating agreements, either to enable mutually-profitable activities, or to avoid costly litigation. In both cases, their activities are mutually-beneficial.

The fact that the parties even need attorneys to represent them in these negotiations suggests that the comparative skills of their respective lawyers would determine the terms of the agreements. The party with better lawyers has an advantage, above and beyond the merits of the trade.

My point would be that such a person has to be supported out of the good will of people like you and me, people who share our moral perspective. NOT by society using physical force to compel unwilling members to contribute towards the support of such a person.

My point would be that such a person shares sovereignty, i.e. land ownership, and is therefore entitled to the proceeds of rent, and need not depend on anyone's good will.

God or nature do not provide much of anything - that's why surviving in a state of nature is very hard work. A person who is incapable of contributing anything to anyone in a modern society would die very quickly if they had to rely on what God or nature provided. As for the benefits of inventors, those are equally available to all.

OK, since land, created by God or nature, does not provide anything, why not let people share in its ownership? I'll gladly hold some ownership shares of this worthless land. Can you give me any of yours? -- just ownership papers for the land, not any improvements or developments.

People are not being "punished" for not contributing. Punishment is an action of actively taking away something to which you are otherwise entitled.

Precisely. If a person is entitled to a share of land ownership and he is being deprived of it, he is being punished. The crux of the issue is who you believe is entitled to own the land, if anyone. Your view is based on homesteading. My view is based on sharing. The homesteader is entitled to the improvements he made, but not necessarily the land and its resources.

The default "state of nature" of Man is one in which he must struggle to survive, even with full access to the gifts of God and nature. By cooperating with other people, that struggle is made much easier, but society must still produce in order to allow any of its members to survive. Those who do not produce must rely on the good will of producers. It is illegitimate (imo) to use physical force to compel those producers to help the non-producers.

But it is legitimate (imo) to use physical force to compel powerful non-producers, known to some as capitalists, to return their holding to their legitimate owners, the "people".
To repeat, the crux of the issue is who do we each consider to be the legitimate owners, if anyone, and how much we value natural resources vs. productivity.

[Eran]

In a free society companies can form alliances which, by definition, reduce if not eliminate competition, to the detriment of the customer. Not all entering competitors can be situated to be equally contending, e.g equally known or accessible to all customers.

No alliance can ever eliminate potential competition. In practice, members of an alliance (or trust, or cartel) routinely cheat each other. That is why, in the 1930's, the Federal government was called in to legislate anti-competitive laws.

The fact that the parties even need attorneys to represent them in these negotiations suggests that the comparative skills of their respective lawyers would determine the terms of the agreements. The party with better lawyers has an advantage, above and beyond the merits of the trade.

The party with better economists, negotiators and managers (decision-makers) would also have the advantage. Negotiation skills are part of the commercial skills required to succeed in business. I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

The paradox of prices is that while the ultimate price set for a single transaction determines only the relative distribution of wealth between buyer and seller following that one transaction, prices taken in aggregate behave systematically as part of the market system to convey information and enable complex systems to emerge.

The legal terms of an agreement between parties are analogous to the price negotiated between them. The negotiation can end up slightly favouring one party or the other. However, both parties benefit from the agreement.

My point would be that such a person shares sovereignty, i.e. land ownership, and is therefore entitled to the proceeds of rent, and need not depend on anyone's good will.

I think we need to agree to disagree on the question of land-rents. However, a state limiting itself to the collection and distribution of land-rents would be a tiny shadow of current states, and would represent a much smaller intrusion on society.

OK, since land, created by God or nature, does not provide anything, why not let people share in its ownership? I'll gladly hold some ownership shares of this worthless land. Can you give me any of yours? -- just ownership papers for the land, not any improvements or developments.

That's because you expect to benefit from the rise in the value of the land due to the improvements and developments built on it - or around it.

The island of Manhattan was worth a few beads a few hundred years ago. It would still be worth very little today - if it weren't for the huge investment of creative people over generations. A new-comer could plausibly claim ownership of the unimproved value of the land. But where does the justification to the value of the land derived from vast improvements created by other people?

But it is legitimate (imo) to use physical force to compel powerful non-producers, known to some as capitalists, to return their holding to their legitimate owners, the "people".

Why do you refer to Capitalists as non-producers? How have they come to own the capital for which they are known? They have produced something to earn it. Or their parents did. But the capital is (in a just society) always the result of production.

[Arie]

The party with better economists, negotiators and managers (decision-makers) would also have the advantage. Negotiation skills are part of the commercial skills required to succeed in business. I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

The point I was making is that while negotiation skills could well be part of the commercial skills required to succeed in business, they confer no benefit to the consumer, or the economy as a whole. The benefit is completely to the better negotiator, even if he is the lesser producer.

The legal terms of an agreement between parties are analogous to the price negotiated between them. The negotiation can end up slightly favouring one party or the other. However, both parties benefit from the agreement.

If I'm starving and someone offers me much less than he is able and expected to pay for a job, both parties benefit. But I'd consider that exploitation, in that advantage was taken of my misfortune, resulting from my or my family's disenfranchisement. It contradicts my sense of fairness.

That's because you expect to benefit from the rise in the value of the land due to the improvements and developments built on it - or around it.

The island of Manhattan was worth a few beads a few hundred years ago. It would still be worth very little today - if it weren't for the huge investment of creative people over generations. A new-comer could plausibly claim ownership of the unimproved value of the land. But where does the justification to the value of the land derived from vast improvements created by other people?

But this is true in today's system, a capitalist system, or in an anarchy as well: Any landowner benefits from the improved value of his surroundings, much of which is not his doing. The point is that benefit is conferred based on ownership, not productivity: The producers are not rewarded for the improvement in value they conferred on nearby land.

Why do you refer to Capitalists as non-producers? How have they come to own the capital for which they are known? They have produced something to earn it. Or their parents did. But the capital is (in a just society) always the result of production.

Capital might always be the result of production, but capital ownership is not. It is primarily a result of power. Of confidence and charisma. Of leadership ability, the ability to gather followers and believers, contributors, investors, lenders, clients or customers. It is a social skill or gamesmanship that often has little to do with productivity. It appeals to cultural stereotypes and understanding of social mores that allows one to gain favor.
BTW, I support capitalism precisely because it does not require productivity in order to make a living: It allows for receipt of dividends not based on one's work, but on one's share of ownership. Granted that the amount of dividends are often based on productive work, but usually not the work of the recipient.

[Eran]

The point I was making is that while negotiation skills could well be part of the commercial skills required to succeed in business, they confer no benefit to the consumer, or the economy as a whole. The benefit is completely to the better negotiator, even if he is the lesser producer.

Negotiation skills determine where, between the buyer's highest price bid, and the seller's lowest price offered, the actual transaction will take place. They do not change the fact that the transaction will still be mutually beneficial, to both buyer and seller.

If I'm starving and someone offers me much less than he is able and expected to pay for a job, both parties benefit. But I'd consider that exploitation, in that advantage was taken of my misfortune, resulting from my or my family's disenfranchisement. It contradicts my sense of fairness.

That's a question of perspective. Just think how much worse off (possibly dead) you would be if it weren't for that offer. It seems to be that you are being very ungrateful. A person just saved you from starvation, and you accuse them of exploitation.

Instead, why don't you consider the circumstances following which you found yourself in that predicament, circumstances presumably under your control?

But this is true in today's system, a capitalist system, or in an anarchy as well: Any landowner benefits from the improved value of his surroundings, much of which is not his doing. The point is that benefit is conferred based on ownership, not productivity: The producers are not rewarded for the improvement in value they conferred on nearby land.

That's true. But the landowner has, presumably, paid for the anticipated future value increases as those were incorporated into the price of land. In other words, the landowner has taken risk when purchasing the land. He risked his own capital. The same does not hold for the public in general.

Capital might always be the result of production, but capital ownership is not. It is primarily a result of power. Of confidence and charisma. Of leadership ability, the ability to gather followers and believers, contributors, investors, lenders, clients or customers. It is a social skill or gamesmanship that often has little to do with productivity. It appeals to cultural stereotypes and understanding of social mores that allows one to gain favor.

(My emphasis) the bolded words sound much more like the prerequisites of success in the political arena.

But still, I don't see the contradiction with production. In order to create a highly productive, capital-intensive factory, you have to persuade investors and lenders to provide you with the funds. In order to sell a product, you have to persuade clients or customers to trust you. Those skills are in inseparable part of the production process in a complex economy.

[Arie]

That's a question of perspective. Just think how much worse off (possibly dead) you would be if it weren't for that offer. It seems to be that you are being very ungrateful. A person just saved you from starvation, and you accuse them of exploitation.

We should be grateful for what we are given, and for the giver's generosity. But a trade is not a gift, particularly one that takes advantage of your weaknesses and pushes you to your limits. There's no gift and no generosity involved. In a trade, both parties give and receive, and unless we feel that someone gave us more than he could get away with, there's no reason to be grateful. Our "thankfulness" is expressed and the "gift" is paid for directly through the exchange itself, and if anyone should be thankful, both parties to the exchange need to thank each other. It's not personal.

Instead, why don't you consider the circumstances following which you found yourself in that predicament, circumstances presumably under your control?

Of course we are responsible for what we can control. But for the most part, people's circumstances are determined by forces larger than themselves. The recent Tsunami in Japan is a reminder of our vulnerability.

"But this is true in today's system, a capitalist system, or in an anarchy as well: Any landowner benefits from the improved value of his surroundings, much of which is not his doing. The point is that benefit is conferred based on ownership, not productivity: The producers are not rewarded for the improvement in value they conferred on nearby land."

That's true. But the landowner has, presumably, paid for the anticipated future value increases as those were incorporated into the price of land. In other words, the landowner has taken risk when purchasing the land. He risked his own capital. The same does not hold for the public in general.

Still the benefit to the owner is based on his ownership, not his productivity, and from the work of others who were not paid for the value their work conferred on his property. Isn't that what I said in the first place?

"Capital might always be the result of production, but capital ownership is not. It is primarily a result of power. Of confidence and charisma. Of leadership ability, the ability to gather followers and believers, contributors, investors, lenders, clients or customers. It is a social skill or gamesmanship that often has little to do with productivity. It appeals to cultural stereotypes and understanding of social mores that allows one to gain favor."

(My emphasis) the bolded words sound much more like the prerequisites of success in the political arena.

Precisely. Success in business depends on some of the same characteristics. Leadership is leadership, whether on a ship, in business, or in any number of political or cultural systems.

But still, I don't see the contradiction with production. In order to create a highly productive, capital-intensive factory, you have to persuade investors and lenders to provide you with the funds. In order to sell a product, you have to persuade clients or customers to trust you. Those skills are in inseparable part of the production process in a complex economy.

True. And an agent who provides these skills should be rewarded for his efforts, just like everyone else contributing to the enterprise. But that does not imply that he therefore should be the "owner" (anymore than the president, the chief executive, should be king). The issue of ownership distribution remains.

[Eran]

We should be grateful for what we are given, and for the giver's generosity. But a trade is not a gift

It's not personal.

No - it isn't. Yet you condemn a trade that was conducted on mutually-beneficial and mutually-agreeable terms precisely because it failed to contain a "gift" component.

Of course we are responsible for what we can control. But for the most part, people's circumstances are determined by forces larger than themselves. The recent Tsunami in Japan is a reminder of our vulnerability.

Not really. People can save for hard times, purchase insurance to cover unexpected bad luck, and sustain and promote networks of personal relations (family, friends, neighbours, etc.) to help in times of trouble.

Responsible people need not find themselves "starving" in a free and prosperous society.

Still the benefit to the owner is based on his ownership, not his productivity, and from the work of others who were not paid for the value their work conferred on his property. Isn't that what I said in the first place?

Land ownership contains a speculative aspect. When one purchases land, one speculates on the future value of the land, and any anticipated future rises in value are already factored into the price paid. The same holds with respect to homesteaded land.

The land purchaser (as well as the homesteader) could just as easily lose the money (and work, and sometimes life) they risk. The upside is part of the reward for that risk-taking.

The same doesn't hold for passive members of society.

Precisely. Success in business depends on some of the same characteristics. Leadership is leadership, whether on a ship, in business, or in any number of political or cultural systems.

But in the business arena, leadership (as well as many other) skills are an integral part of the productive process. A corporate leader IS being economically productive by virtue of leading his company. A politician is not.

True. And an agent who provides these skills should be rewarded for his efforts, just like everyone else contributing to the enterprise. But that does not imply that he therefore should be the "owner" (anymore than the president, the chief executive, should be king). The issue of ownership distribution remains.

I agree. And corporate leaders do not automatically enjoy ownership. Rather, ownership is conferred through homesteading (for natural resources) and initial creation and gifting (for intangible corporate assets).

Let me ask you, are you suggesting that a person who starts a company (with no employees or investors yet) shouldn't be a 100% owner of the company? If he is a 100% owner (initially), is he not entitled to enter into any mutually-acceptable agreement with potential investors and employees, in which a combination of financial, labour and equity assets is exchanged?

That's how ownership distribution is set.

[Arie]

Yet you condemn a trade that was conducted on mutually-beneficial and mutually-agreeable terms precisely because it failed to contain a "gift" component.

You miss understood. I do not condemn trade for not containing a gift component. I merely said that if it doesn't, there's no need for gratitude. Also, and this is one of our basic disagreements, I don't assume that all trades are fair just because both parties agreed to it -- I think the relative circumstances, strengths, and weaknesses of the parties need to be considered in determining fairness, not just in figuring how to take advantage of each other.

People can save for hard times, purchase insurance to cover unexpected bad luck, and sustain and promote networks of personal relations (family, friends, neighbours, etc.) to help in times of trouble.

The nature of contingencies is that we do not know just how much we should prepare, since we do not know the magnitude of the contingency. I save based on what I anticipate might happen, but what actually happens can be much worse. Was I responsible? The amount of preparation considered "responsible" is very subjective, depending on social and cultural standards, as well as personal inclinations. The population consists of risk-takers and more cautious people, and only the future determines who did the right thing. Support from family, friends, and neighbors depends very much on social mores and prejudices, and personal charm or attractiveness. A person, perhaps sick or disabled in some way, can induce aversion in others through no fault of his own.
If I understand your view, it is that if we are risk takers, we should be rewarded if our risk paid off, and accept the consequence of our irresponsibility in taking the risk when we lose. My view is that the point of living in a community is to mitigate or distribute the risk, to allow for risk taking but provide some safety.

Responsible people need not find themselves "starving" in a free and prosperous society.

This is a belief to which I do not subscribe. "Responsibility" is subjective, as explained above. We should accept the consequences of our actions, but it is society that often determines what those consequences should be: If I murder someone no one cares about, society prosecutes me for murder. This discussion is partly about what those consequences should be, and apparently we disagree on that.

Land ownership contains a speculative aspect. When one purchases land, one speculates on the future value of the land, and any anticipated future rises in value are already factored into the price paid. The same holds with respect to homesteaded land.

The land purchaser (as well as the homesteader) could just as easily lose the money (and work, and sometimes life) they risk. The upside is part of the reward for that risk-taking.

The same doesn't hold for passive members of society.

When someone's gamble pays off, it doesn't mean he "deserves" his winnings, anymore than if he loses, he "deserves" his loss. The fundamental question here is whether and how the whims of fortune should be mitigated. Perhaps as a libertarian or anarchist, you believe they should not be mitigated at all. This is a question of fundamental values and beliefs.

But in the business arena, leadership (as well as many other) skills are an integral part of the productive process. A corporate leader IS being economically productive by virtue of leading his company. A politician is not.

A politician, in the sense of being a statesman, can play an economically significant and beneficial role, even greater than that of a businessman. And a businessman is successful not so much by being productive but by successfully directing the flow of proceeds to his business. The assumption is that he would do that by providing a better product, but I think that's a simplistic view. A large part of business efforts and resources are directed at advertising and undermining competition, not just by producing a better product. The job of a businessman is not so much to provide products or services, which are widely available from others, but to be the one who gets the reward for doing it.

And corporate leaders do not automatically enjoy ownership. Rather, ownership is conferred through homesteading (for natural resources) and initial creation and gifting (for intangible corporate assets).

I understand that this is your view, but it is not self evidently the only criteria for ownership. I have a different view.

Let me ask you, are you suggesting that a person who starts a company (with no employees or investors yet) shouldn't be a 100% owner of the company? If he is a 100% owner (initially), is he not entitled to enter into any mutually-acceptable agreement with potential investors and employees, in which a combination of financial, labour and equity assets is exchanged?

He is indeed, and should be, the owner of the company, and is entitled to enter into any mutually acceptable agreements. But in my view, he is not the owner of the land or natural resources that he uses in providing his service or product. He should rent them from the owners, which in my view are the citizens at large. I don't see homesteading as a legitimate claim to ownership of natural resources, and you do. Perhaps that's the fundamental disagreement. I think I'm in complete agreement with you when it comes to freely making deals and agreements, and have no objection to a free market, capitalism, and the evolving institutions of business. My only contention regards ownership of land (and its resources).

[eugenekop]

My view is that the point of living in a community is to mitigate or distribute the risk, to allow for risk taking but provide some safety.

Great, just do it voluntary. Join a group of people who wish to pool their risk. This is called insurance. Don't force people who don't want to pool their risks with you to do it.

But in my view, he is not the owner of the land or natural resources that he uses in providing his service or product.

But why should all the people on earth own the resources? What does a kid from Pakistan have to do with a horse you tamed or an oil well you found? What about aliens, are they also legitimate owners of resources on earth?

[Arie]

"My view is that the point of living in a community is to mitigate or distribute the risk, to allow for risk taking but provide some safety. "

Great, just do it voluntary. Join a group of people who wish to pool their risk. This is called insurance. Don't force people who don't want to pool their risks with you to do it.

It's also called being a member of the community. I agree that no one should be forced to be a member of the community, or a citizen of any country, but if he is not, he does not have any legal claim to his property and cannot expect the community to respect his presumptive claims, much less protect them, unless the community agrees to do so.

"But in my view, he is not the owner of the land or natural resources that he uses in providing his service or product."

But why should all the people on earth own the resources? What does a kid from Pakistan have to do with a horse you tamed or an oil well you found? What about aliens, are they also legitimate owners of resources on earth?

I don't know if all the people on earth should own the resources. I just prefer a community in which the members share ownership of natural resources. Whether that community should consist of the all the people on earth, or even extraterrestrials, is another matter. Regarding the horse you tamed or the well you found, you should certainly be rewarded for taming the horse, but not for the horse himself, and you should certainly be rewarded for finding the oil, but not for the oil itself. Ownership is just one of several alternative means of reward.

[eugenekop]

It's also called being a member of the community. I agree that no one should be forced to be a member of the community, or a citizen of any country, but if he is not, he does not have any legal claim to his property and cannot expect the community to respect his presumptive claims, much less protect them, unless the community agrees to do so.

So unless I share the resource I found with some arbitrary group of people who happen to know about my finding and have enough guns to take it away from me, I cannot justly own the resource? I don't see how this is just. Why do people absolutely have to be part of community at all? What if I am a lonely wolf and I am my own community?

[Arie]

"It's also called being a member of the community. I agree that no one should be forced to be a member of the community, or a citizen of any country, but if he is not, he does not have any legal claim to his property and cannot expect the community to respect his presumptive claims, much less protect them, unless the community agrees to do so."

So unless I share the resource I found with some arbitrary group of people who happen to know about my finding and have enough guns to take it away from me, I cannot justly own the resource? I don't see how this is just. Why do people absolutely have to be part of community at all? What if I am a lonely wolf and I am my own community?

From one point of view, you cannot "justly own" land or natural resources in any case, even if there's no one to take it away from you. In the end, it's all taken away when you die anyway. We're just temporary renters.
As you can see from the above quote, I already agreed that you can be lonely wolf and be your own community. But if you are, you are left with the task of protecting your claim by yourself. You can claim just ownership all you want, but if you're a lonely wolf, then the people around you will see and treat you as one. Then you can appeal to the highest court, i.e. God, when you die. And I'm not at all sure if that decision will be in favor either.

[eugenekop]

But if you are, you are left with the task of protecting your claim by yourself.

It all depends on the sense of justice people have. If people don't believe the resource I discovered is mine (at least for some period of time), then they will see violence against me justified. If however they will assume that my ownership is a just one, then they will not use violence. So what is your sense of justice in this case? Can you provide a ground rule for when a resource can be owned by a single person and what it cannot?