"To be clear: Arguing that state requisitioning of property or land constitutes a violence against the individual and a breach of an assumed moral right to property is all well and good; but when multiple redistributions have occurred under similar or more inequitable circumstances, one seems to be in something of a bind."So says James Baron, in a post about a land-reform museum and some memories of an online argument about the theft of farmers' property by the Miaoli County government in 2010. I note also at the beginning of this post that he has disallowed me from commenting on his post (and on previous posts of his also). And this is after he recently emailed me to ask me to go for a beer with him down here in Tainan. Unless there was some technical problem with my comments (and I don't think there was), then what a cunning stunt he is.
At any rate, to complete the remainder of the thought for him, the alleged "bind" is that since the current owners of a property may have acquired it as beneficiaries of a similar policy of government theft as troubles them now, their property right is therefore null and void anyway, and so there can be no genuine moral objection to the government theft of their property - even to call it "government theft" or something similar, would be an error when seen in this way because the property right is seen as null and void.
The argument, however, is invalid on at least two counts.
First, the conclusion of the argument does not necessarily follow from the premise, i.e. a given property title should not necessarily be considered null and void just because that property title was made available by government "redistribution". In the first place this is because the original rightful owners may be long dead, and it may not be possible to locate their heirs in which case, providing it cannot be shown that the current title holders are guilty of the theft of the property themselves (or understood that they were in fact receiving stolen property), Locke's principle of first appropriation should apply and the current title owners should be considered legitimate. Remember, the argument under consideration is not a direct argument for the abolition of property rights, but an indirect one: it does not challenge the moral basis of property rights per se, only a fault in their application - namely the exaggerated difficulty of considering property justly acquired.
Second, the implication drawn from the conclusion does not follow, and is at once absurd and obviously in the interests of the Left: if a given property title, or a series of such, is to be considered null and void, then the government has the legitimate power to commit more such thefts in the future. That is akin to saying that two wrongs make a right. Put into a broader context, the conclusion is utterly appalling because it results in a de-facto abolition of property rights: provided that the government can make a suitably persuasive "collective benefit" argument to back up its' expropriation, then no claim to property is immune and thus the right to property disappears and becomes a mere permission. Which is of course the result that collectivists want anyway because they value any number of other things over, above and against individual freedom.
Related: a quick look around the web reveals a broader discussion of the issue at Samizdata.
Without getting into the logic of the arguments itself, I would like to ask why it is that you can so clearly identify property theft, or denial or recognition of property rights, as a core component of left wing ideologies and government praxis but fail to see its historical, extensive and ongoing execution by right wing governments and businesses? You talk of The Left wanting to steal land for the Government but when The Right is doing it suddenly its The State and you disappear the ideology. Property and the right to it and the ability to defend that right is about power, and that power is abused across the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAlso, would you acknowledge that Locke's principle of first appropriation is deeply problematic in that it has, in different ways, been used as an excuse by colonialists of all races to take over and settle property on the grounds that the indigenous existant people aren't really 'people' (savages can't own land) or 'legitimate owners' of the land (where's yer title deed mate?!) etc
I don't fail to see it when it is done by right-wing parties. All of the cases in Taiwan where this has happened - or at least those which I have criticized - were all done by the KMT (either central or local governments). If there is a difference it is largely one of extent of application and rhetorical emphasis; opposition to economic freedom and to property rights is a more consistent and core focus of socialist ideology than supposedly "conservative" ideology.
ReplyDeleteOn Locke's principle of first appropriation... no. The notion that indigenous people aren't really "people" is just straightforward racism and has nothing to do with Locke's first appropriation principle. In fact Locke's original discussion is more befitting the case of indigenous people than you perhaps realize since it does not depend on superficial points like the existence of formal title deeds and so on. If you had read Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise, you would know this. But you haven't have you?
No racism in Locke? Really? Maybe not his direct intention but as I stated earlier his ideas make fertile grounds for constructing the case for appropriating land. I found these comments on an article about that Chapter 5 quite interesting:
ReplyDelete"Locke observes that the poorest day laborer in England, living under a private ownership system, is better off than a chieftain, the best off person, in a North American tribe that lives under something closer to a free use system and that does not countenance private ownership, and this even though North America is far richer in natural resources than in England."
... and ...
"Locke also stipulates in paragraph 31 that the right to appropriate and use the things of the earth does not include a right to “spoil or destroy” or let things go to waste. Locke does not elaborate, but we might wonder: if there is nonscarcity, and condition C holds, why should not my liberty to live as I choose include a liberty to appropriate land and leave it in its natural state? Maybe I just like to watch leaves and fruit rot and fall. One might also wonder what limits the stringency of the No-Waste rule. Locke seems to have in mind that if hunter-gatherers claim a vast expanse
of land as theirs to roam in, this counts as waste, relative to the claim of one who wants to farm the land and make it more productive."
Finally, at what point do we stop to address the euro-centric nature of Locke's philosophy, situated within the Judeo-Christian tradition and perspective, and how that does not take account of the possibility that there are multiple other notions of land sharing, use and portioning - some fair and some less so, that have functioned for thousands of years without ever needing someone to write a name of a piece of paper that says this is theirs? When are you going to address where this glorious system of private property rights based on western political philosophy has got us in terms of tragedy of the commons, pollution, environmental waste and despoilation and, last but not least, a state of a permanent war economy?
There is no racism in the first appropriation principle. Whether there might be instances of racism elsewhere in Locke's works I'm not sure - but that is a far more general claim than the specific claim about the first appropriation principle you initially raised.
ReplyDeleteThe first quotation there comparing the poorest day labourer in England to the North American chieftain is not racist, if that is what you mean by "interesting". It is merely a comparison of material standards of living (i.e. the day labourer was likely to be better fed).
The second quotation, which criticizes the "no-waste" rule is valid up to a point, but the author then goes well beyond that point. So yes, if you wanted to buy say, an orchard just to photograph the fruit rotting or something... then fine and Locke's "no-waste" rule would be inappropriate. However, elsewhere in Locke's work (especially the "Letter Concerning Toleration"), he distinguishes between governance by law (i.e. by limited government) and governance by voluntary association and there is good reason to believe he meant the no-waste rule rather as a precept for righteous conduct rather than a law under which people could be sent to trial. Furthermore, the ridiculous example of hunter-gatherers claiming a vast tract of land as their property is problematic not because it is "wasteful", but because (a) they cannot reasonably expect other people on the other side of that vast tract of land to be aware of their claim, and (b) other people will likely also have competing claims, since they also require land to survive.
"Finally, at what point do we stop to address the euro-centric nature of Locke's philosophy..."
We don't Ben, because we are not so superficial as to judge the content of a philosophy on the basis of which country a writer happened to be born in, or of what racial or religious characteristics the writer may have had. In short because we are not bigots.
"... how that does not take account of the possibility that there are multiple other notions of land sharing, use and portioning - some fair and some less so, that have functioned for thousands of years without ever needing someone to write a name of a piece of paper that says this is theirs?"
I think that, although he was obviously limited by lack of data concerning land use systems in other cultures, Locke's discussion of property is not quite as parochial as you imagine - largely because you are ignoring the principle of voluntary action and exchange in play and instead concentrating only on superficial aspects of the discussion (e.g. the need for pieces of paper to write down property titles - as if there could be no other mechansim for identifying legitimate property holders in cases of dispute).
"When are you going to address where this glorious system of private property rights based on western political philosophy has got us in terms of tragedy of the commons, pollution, environmental waste and despoilation and, last but not least, a state of a permanent war economy?"
I'm not - because those problems (e.g. tragedy of commons) are a result of the absence of private property rights. That's what "commons" means you daft banana.