Kevin Carson’s thirteenth research paper, “Communal Property: A Libertarian Analysis,” argues that the libertarian defense of property doesn’t apply only to fee simple individual property. Communal Property: A Libertarian Analysis
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, Propriedade Comunal: Análise Libertária.
Communal Property: A Libertarian Analysis
By Kevin Carson
“The Dominant market anarchist view of property takes for granted individual, fee-simple ownership through individual appropriation as the only natural form of property. Right-wing libertarian and Objectivist forums are full of statements that ‘there’s no such thing as collective property,’ ‘all property rights are individual,” and the like. But as Karl Hess argued, libertarian property can take on a wide variety of legitimate forms. Communal ownership of land is a legitimate and plausible model for property rights in a stateless society based on free association. Historically, the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the first appropriation of land for agriculture was almost universally by peasant villages working as a social unit. The village commune and open field system were, almost universally, the dominant property model in societies which, so far in human history, came closest to approximating the libertarian ideal of statelessness and voluntary association: the neolithic village societies between the agricultural revolution and the rise of the state.”
This “ready to print” version of Communal Property was created by Invisible Molotov.
Invisible Molotov is a market anarchist zine distro & publishing house.
The blurb here says: "Kevin Carson’s thirteenth research paper, “Communal Property: A Libertarian Analysis,” argues that the libertarian defense of property doesn’t apply only to fee simple individual property."
And your opening paragraph says: "The dominant market anarchist view of property takes for granted individual, fee-simple ownership through individual appropriation as the only natural form of property. Although common or collective ownership is grudgingly accepted as a legitimate—if inefficient—form of “voluntary socialism,” it's taken for granted that such forms of ownership can only come about through some sort of special contract between preexisting owners of fee-simple individual property. Land can only be appropriated, runs the usually tacit assumption, by individuals."
You might first of interest this paper by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a leading market anarchist, or "anarcho-capitalist," theoriest: “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization” http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private… — Hoppe talks about a community or collective easement being homesteaded, say in a town. He doesn't call this or deride it as socialist, nor does he say it's formed by contract, nor he is begrudging about it at all.
And doesn't Rothbard, say, in his Air Pollution article, talk about homesteading air pollution easements? This one is done individually instead of collectively, admittedly, but it is less than fee simple ownership.
I'll try to read the rest of your paper later, but I have always assumed that you could have both group homesteading and "partial" (less than fee simple) homesteading.
Incidentally, speaking of fee simple–not all of us "market anarchists" prefer terminology that is a relic of the feudal age. I prefer the conceptually cleaner terminology and classifcation system of the civil law or continental legal systems, whcih has less feudalistic baggage and encumbrances. So–servitudes instead of easements, usufructs instead of life estates, immovable verus "real", and just plain ownership instead of "fee simple," naked owner instead of remainderman (or residue of a life estate), and so on.
My recent post Slate’s Farhad Manjoo: Use Crowdsourcing to Improve Patents and Kill Patent Trolls
I guess this research paper is more interested in "forums" than scholarly work. There are a number of notable libertarian academics who have written on the topic of common property under libertarian anarchism. An obvious example is Holcombe, Randall. "Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism." Journal of Libertarian Studies. Spring 2005. [http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_1.pdf]
Also, regarding this line: "Right-wing libertarian and Objectivist forums are full of statements that “there's no such thing as collective property,” “all property rights are individual,” and the like. Ayn Rand argued that it was impossible for European settlers to steal the land of American Indians, because the latter had no valid property rights:"
–I, for one, have criticized her for exactly this view — fyi.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/08/objectivis…
My recent post Slate’s Farhad Manjoo: Use Crowdsourcing to Improve Patents and Kill Patent Trolls
Stephan and Dick: I suppose I should have said the "stereotypical libertarian position," or something of that sort.
My recent post New Book in the Works
I think it meant in general, that's the dominant market anarchist view because he believes most market anarchists hold that view. I don't think it's really true though like you said. I think most libertarians as a whole may hold that view but not really the market anarchist ones.
Wow… These forums are far more civil than the anarchist backwaters of YouTube… Pretty much every anarchist on YouTube is a hideous, festering abscess; feverishly typing away defamatory comments directed towards anyone who they disagree with…
Kevin Carson, I'm a big fan of your work and have been following Left-Wing Libertarianism for a quite a while now. I have been uploading some of your material to websites helping spread the message.
Anyways, I would ask you to read this article written by a Psychology Professor that examines the hidden, racial origins of Right-Wing Libertarianism and how the Jewish intellectuals who started and advanced Objectivism, Vulgar Libertarianism, and Anarcho-Capitalism were ultimately doing so for racial reasons. (Some have even admitted, like Mises, that anyone deemed an anti-semite should be discriminated against in a free market. Going as far as to deny them medical access and use of roads)
Anyways here is the article: http://www.toqonline.com/blog/free-to-lose/
Would discrimination against racists not be a valid expression of individual liberty? I don't think a proper anarchist can make prescriptive declarations like "people 'should' do this or that in a free market", but one could say, "people probably would" or "people might" or "I certainly would". I for one, will certainly discriminate against racists and any other people who hold beliefs or practices I find repellant, regardless of the dominant political system. And of course they'll be free to discriminate against people they dislike.
As to the article, I personally found it bizarre and nearly incomprehensible.
Yeah, that article made no sense, but then again writings and rantings that have headings along the lines of "Jews and (insert social issue here)" rarely do. Particularly when Mel Gibson has been drinking…