The Lockean synthesis

[Skeckoa]

Rent conveys ownership by a landlord or by the state. The state doesn't "own" all of the land in the way individuals own private property, so how could a state "rent out" land it doesn't own in the first place? Compensation for the diminishment of rights of others is not "rent". It's a whole other, separate category.

But it is not a diminishment of rights because the unowned land was not their "right". It was more of a legal privilege. The ability to trek on land does not equate to ownership, therefore, does not need to be compensated for its use.

Right?

[Maqo]

an anarchistic society being a state under this definition doesn't preclude it being anarchistic.

Yes, it does. Anarchism is definitively stateless. That's what makes it anarchistic.

Also, if taxation is compensation for the use of public resources and so forth, how does that differ from rent?

Rent conveys ownership by a landlord or by the state. The state doesn't "own" all of the land in the way individuals own private property, so how could a state "rent out" land it doesn't own in the first place? Compensation for the diminishment of rights of others is not "rent". It's a whole other, separate category.

Why do you say the state does not own land in the same way as an individual?

If a private individual owns land and sells it to the state, then the state would own it exactly as a private individual. Right?
If the state is the first to arrive on a plot of land, and clears the land, killing off the wild animals/natives, clears the land ready for building, then the state would own it exactly as if a private individual had done those same things. Right?

Under your system, what prevents Russia from demanding compensation from people living in America? And what gives the state a right to do those things, as opposed to private individuals?

[Skeckoa]

killing off… natives

Pfft.

[Murkwood]

TL;DR, pls?

[Maqo]

killing off… natives

Pfft.

It might not be moral, but it happens. I doubt there are many places in the world that were not taken at least once by conquest. Any moral system has to deal with that fact rather than retreating in to excuses of 'state of nature' or 'legitimate ownership'. In most cases, people are the legitimate owners because the former legitimate owners are no longer laying claim, on account of being dead.

[MERIZoC]

TL;DR, pls?

The libertarian argument of "I own it" isn't legitimate because originally, everyone/nobody owned everything, so basically taxation is compensation for taking it, rather than unjustified theft.

I think.

[Murkwood]

TL;DR, pls?

The libertarian argument of "I own it" isn't legitimate because originally, everyone/nobody owned everything, so basically taxation is compensation for taking it, rather than unjustified theft.

I think.

I thought Ark was a Libertarian.

[MERIZoC]

The libertarian argument of "I own it" isn't legitimate because originally, everyone/nobody owned everything, so basically taxation is compensation for taking it, rather than unjustified theft.

I think.

I thought Ark was a Libertarian.

No, that's the whole point. Not anymore he's not. He's changed his ideology so that it can be consistent with his philosophy.

[Murkwood]

I thought Ark was a Libertarian.

No, that's the whole point. Not anymore he's not. He's changed his ideology so that it can be consistent with his philosophy.

What is he now?

[Skeckoa]

It might not be moral, but it happens. I doubt there are many places in the world that were not taken at least once by conquest. Any moral system has to deal with that fact rather than retreating in to excuses of 'state of nature' or 'legitimate ownership'. In most cases, people are the legitimate owners because the former legitimate owners are no longer laying claim, on account of being dead.

Well, on the post you said "first ones to come to a land". If they had to kill the residents there, then they did not get there first.

But yes, this has happened. No point denying that.

[Maqo]

It might not be moral, but it happens. I doubt there are many places in the world that were not taken at least once by conquest. Any moral system has to deal with that fact rather than retreating in to excuses of 'state of nature' or 'legitimate ownership'. In most cases, people are the legitimate owners because the former legitimate owners are no longer laying claim, on account of being dead.

Well, on the post you said "first ones to come to a land". If they had to kill the residents there, then they did not get there first.

Easily justified by white man by calling the natives 'savages' and refusing to recognise their humanity hence why I somewhat sarcastically said 'wild animals/natives' - from a certain point of view the two are the same.
Didn't Locke originally justify 'taking' land from the native Americans on account of them not really being there / not using it properly (being nomadic rather than creating homesteads)?

[MERIZoC]

No, that's the whole point. Not anymore he's not. He's changed his ideology so that it can be consistent with his philosophy.

What is he now?

A New Keynesian/Lockean Synthesist (a term he developed)

[Counterforce Militia II]

Ark, why shouldn't we have pure anarchy?

[Skeckoa]

Didn't Locke originally justify 'taking' land from the native Americans on account of them not really being there / not using it properly (being nomadic rather than creating homesteads)?

Yeeeppp, that sounds like something that he would say.

No, that's the whole point. Not anymore he's not. He's changed his ideology so that it can be consistent with his philosophy.

What is he now?

Dude, look at the OP. He explains it all.

[Arkolon]

Rent conveys ownership by a landlord or by the state. The state doesn't "own" all of the land in the way individuals own private property, so how could a state "rent out" land it doesn't own in the first place? Compensation for the diminishment of rights of others is not "rent". It's a whole other, separate category.

But it is not a diminishment of rights because the unowned land was not their "right". It was more of a legal privilege. The ability to trek on land does not equate to ownership, therefore, does not need to be compensated for its use.

Right?

There is a right to accumulate property, which is what makes turning common property into private property a blatant contravention of rights. The difference is subtle, but is similar to the one right to happiness/to pursue happiness.

[Arkolon]

Ark, why shouldn't we have pure anarchy?

Anarchy can only be temporary, and would quickly be replaced by a state or a state-like entity. I'd be able to give you a more specific answer if you told me why anarchy?

[Arkolon]

Yes, it does. Anarchism is definitively stateless. That's what makes it anarchistic.


Rent conveys ownership by a landlord or by the state. The state doesn't "own" all of the land in the way individuals own private property, so how could a state "rent out" land it doesn't own in the first place? Compensation for the diminishment of rights of others is not "rent". It's a whole other, separate category.

Why do you say the state does not own land in the same way as an individual?

If a private individual owns land and sells it to the state, then the state would own it exactly as a private individual. Right?
If the state is the first to arrive on a plot of land, and clears the land, killing off the wild animals/natives, clears the land ready for building, then the state would own it exactly as if a private individual had done those same things. Right?

Oh, yeah, sure. Sorry for the vagueness, I meant to say that states do not own ALL of the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they could tax based on rent, or as a landlord. States can own land the same way other abstract entities can, like corporations or syndicates.

Under your system, what prevents Russia from demanding compensation from people living in America? And what gives the state a right to do those things, as opposed to private individuals?

The state is a collective representative of the private individuals in its jurisdiction. The same would apply even for ancap state-like entities. Compensation is just another part of libertarian principles of justice, so it would be like asking what gives the state a right to protect people from aggression. I guess it depends on the specifics of how a state is construed, but generally everyone within the state's jurisdiction would be protected by that state and would have to pay taxes to that state the very same way.

The US isn't Russia's jurisdiction (?).

[Imyoji]

It's very well structured and organized, Ark. I like the gist of it as well so far. I'm going to read it a few more times to find any issues.

And it just so happens to be that I'm one of those moderates you've mentioned (though I just rely on sheer pragmatic utilitarianism to address the ideological mess that is life), so, care to expand on that?

[Maqo]

Oh, yeah, sure. Sorry for the vagueness, I meant to say that states do not own ALL of the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they could tax based on rent, or as a landlord. States can own land the same way other abstract entities can, like corporations or syndicates.

Which state doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction? Can you give an example of why the state wouldn't own it all?

Under your system, what prevents Russia from demanding compensation from people living in America? And what gives the state a right to do those things, as opposed to private individuals?

The state is a collective representative of the private individuals in its jurisdiction. The same would apply even for ancap state-like entities. Compensation is just another part of libertarian principles of justice, so it would be like asking what gives the state a right to protect people from aggression. I guess it depends on the specifics of how a state is construed, but generally everyone within the state's jurisdiction would be protected by that state and would have to pay taxes to that state the very same way.

The US isn't Russia's jurisdiction (?).

I'm sorry, I've lost you.
Here you make it sound like you owe the state compensation (in whatever form the state deems appropriate) because they are providing you with a service in the form of protection.

I thought the idea proposed in the OP was that X individual/party is entitled to compensation when individual/party A appropriated some property (or medium of exchange, which is equivalent to private property). A possessing that property (or currency equivalent to property) denies X access to that property (or some future property) which was once common.

Have I got one/both of those statements wrong?

If a person in the USA acquires some property which was once common, then they are denying it to people in Russia just as surely as they are denying it to people down the road, or on the other side of the country. Shouldn't the Russian be compensated as well?

[Arkolon]

TL;DR, pls?

The libertarian argument of "I own it" isn't legitimate because originally, everyone/nobody owned everything, so basically taxation is compensation for taking it, rather than unjustified theft.

I think.

Yes, correct again. That is the proviso, at least. The synthesis judges that, as exchanges and mediums of exchange are entitlements to private property, they hold the same value as private property, thus making their taxation nothing more than compensation. The same way you could own a house, never having seen it, known it, or been told of your ownership over it, the house would still be yours, and you would still have the duties in relation to that house.

[Arkolon]

Didn't Locke originally justify 'taking' land from the native Americans on account of them not really being there / not using it properly (being nomadic rather than creating homesteads)?

He was also an extremely devout Christian and a lot of his justifications for propertarianism would revolve around biblical stories, ie did God grant Adam property, and so on. We don't really listen to Locke a lot on these things anymore, but his propertarianism did lead the way for a secular rendition of natural rights through self-ownership, for example.

[Arkolon]

It's very well structured and organized, Ark. I like the gist of it as well so far. I'm going to read it a few more times to find any issues.

And it just so happens to be that I'm one of those moderates you've mentioned (though I just rely on sheer pragmatic utilitarianism to address the ideological mess that is life), so, care to expand on that?

Thank you for the compliments.

By utilitarianism, do you mean maximising utility specifically? If that is the case, how can you not admit that there are other factors to take into account, aside from utility, and what do you think of, say, the utility monster? In a hypothetical scenario where one individual gets a hundred times more utility than normal, does this justify him receiving more resources than everyone else, specifically because, in that way, utility is maximised? How is this a plausible basis for distributive justice?

[Arkolon]

Oh, yeah, sure. Sorry for the vagueness, I meant to say that states do not own ALL of the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they could tax based on rent, or as a landlord. States can own land the same way other abstract entities can, like corporations or syndicates.

Which state doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction? Can you give an example of why the state wouldn't own it all?

Pretty much every single modern state with a mixed economy doesn't claim to own all the land within their jurisdiction. If they did, they wouldn't legally recognise private property, which would eliminate the possibility of us being in a capitalist system. Seeing as private property is recognised, and private property has private individual owners, the state does not own it. It is not theirs. If all private property was public property, that would be the literal definition of socialism.

The state is a collective representative of the private individuals in its jurisdiction. The same would apply even for ancap state-like entities. Compensation is just another part of libertarian principles of justice, so it would be like asking what gives the state a right to protect people from aggression. I guess it depends on the specifics of how a state is construed, but generally everyone within the state's jurisdiction would be protected by that state and would have to pay taxes to that state the very same way.

The US isn't Russia's jurisdiction (?).

I'm sorry, I've lost you.
Here you make it sound like you owe the state compensation (in whatever form the state deems appropriate) because they are providing you with a service in the form of protection.

Yeah, I wrote this straight after having woken up, so I may have been unclear without noticing it.

Here I meant to get across that you owe the state compensation because you are in possession of private property. The state offers many services, mainly protection and regulation at its core, and it also deals with justice. You paying compensation as a rectification of your injustices, the diminishment of rights, is in regards to the state's role in justice. Thus, the role of the state is to: enforce contracts, protect individuals, recognise the existence of private property, and to rectify injustices. Asking "why do you have the authority to tax me?", one core function of the state, is similar to asking "why do you have the authority to protect me?", another, similar, core function of the state.

I thought the idea proposed in the OP was that X individual/party is entitled to compensation when individual/party A appropriated some property (or medium of exchange, which is equivalent to private property). A possessing that property (or currency equivalent to property) denies X access to that property (or some future property) which was once common.

Yes, that's exactly it.

If a person in the USA acquires some property which was once common, then they are denying it to people in Russia just as surely as they are denying it to people down the road, or on the other side of the country. Shouldn't the Russian be compensated as well?

I'm not extremely well-versed in international law or international relations, but, similar to my first point, this question is like asking why the Russian government can't arrest a man in the United States. Different state, different jurisdiction, difference private defense agency, I don't know. I admit I'm a little embarrassed I can't answer this question as well as I can others.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I think an issue that emerges here is the matter of the rightful level of compensation; whether this decreases over time as the currently existing citizenry becomes ever more remote from that which the initial injustice was perpetrated against - are those who haven't owned the property for generations and generations owed anything more than a peppercorn rent? I can't help but feel that the idea of compensating for historic injustices opens an unmanageable can of worms with the various invasions, subjugations and changes of elite over time - for example; does there need to be a mass drain of wealth from previous colonial countries to compensate for the deprivations of land and property endured under colonialism? Or does a a new governmental system, change of borders etc. "wipe the state clean" - in which case taxation would henceforth be unjust?

[Arkolon]

I think an issue that emerges here is the matter of the rightful level of compensation; whether this decreases over time as the currently existing citizenry becomes ever more remote from that which the initial injustice was perpetrated against - are those who haven't owned the property for generations and generations owed anything more than a peppercorn rent? I can't help but feel that the idea of compensating for historic injustices opens an unmanageable can of worms with the various invasions, subjugations and changes of elite over time - for example; does there need to be a mass drain of wealth from previous colonial countries to compensate for the deprivations of land and property endured under colonialism? Or does a a new governmental system, change of borders etc. "wipe the state clean" - in which case taxation would henceforth be unjust?

The injustice doesn't stop or decline or fall after the acquisition of private property, but still remains fully unjust. It is unjust because it diminishes everyone else's rights to accumulate private property: say we lived in a land that was a hundred kilometres by hundred kilometres large, me appropriating one kilometre squared of it means you now have the rights to accumulate one kilometre squared less than you used to. You are put in a worse off position, having had your rights diminished, and compensation is used to put you in a better off, or perhaps equal to prior the acquistion, position. So we shouldn't consider any injustice like that "historical", as continued possession of private property is still considered an injustice, and you are still put in a worse off position than you would be had I not acquired the private property.

Rectifying past injustices when it comes to theft, pillaging, and wars, I guess all of these would be wiped clean, as it would be, as you say, unmanageable. Maybe not wiped clean, actually; closer to "we'll let you appeal for that in a court of justice", if anything. The proviso and the synthesis relate more to the injustices of being in possession of private property, or mediums to private property.

The level of compensation ought be decided by the states themselves. The state is anyway a representation of the collective citizens below it, especially in a democracy, so what the state decides is an adequate level of taxation is, more or less, the adequate level of compensation judged by the citizenry.