Dominoes - Pay a little more

[Old Greg]

I don't hold much store by the legitimacy of Parliament and particularly not the Parliament if the days before universal suffrage. But I genuinely don't understand how you can hold such store by your claim to property rights when that claim derives ultimately from Enclosure.

How is your willingness to use state backed violence to defend this dubious claim objectively moral, whereas the state's forced appropriation of taxation is objectively immoral (or correct me if I have misrepresented the argument)?

[Zero Liability]

Determining who is due what after centuries of state violence is a pretty convoluted topic and not amenable to one-size-fits-all answers, which is why I kept pressing for the actual relationships involved. The fact that some acquisition of property has been made due to the government does not imply all or even most of it has. It'd be nice if we could hit a reset button, however, as I am not particularly keen on people whose money derives from state privilege (or crime, more generally) keeping it, but equally we all know what came after the French Revolution, and how little it had to do with any notion of justice.

Faced with a dilemma, i.e. Parliament keeps it under its control or bequeaths it to someone else, I would have to say neither is a good option. But like I said, the relationship between Parliament and the electorate isn't necessarily one where Parliament is an agent of the former, or even a custodian over resources they may have entrusted it to control. There is nothing nearly as clear as the contract between a PLC and its shareholder, for instance, even though this is what the relationship is meant to mimic.

To give two concrete examples, in the case of a piece of unowned land, which the government merely proclaims ownership over, I see no problem with it bequeathing this to someone, though preferably it'd act in the interest of its principals (assuming the electorate is such) and sell it.

In the case of, e.g. the Royal Mail, you could make the argument either its workers or the taxpayers have higher claim over it and its assets than anyone to whom it is bequeathed.

Instances where land has been taken from someone (which is more or less how I understand the Enclosure) and they and any possible heirs are all out of existence resemble the first rather than the second scenario. However, if the government simply took it, you could always ask the question as to why the robber gets to determine where the property goes. Certainly in the case of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, where similar events occurred, pushing masses of individuals into poverty, you could ask this question, so I see little reason why you couldn't of the British government.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I don't hold much store by the legitimacy of Parliament and particularly not the Parliament if the days before universal suffrage. But I genuinely don't understand how you can hold such store by your claim to property rights when that claim derives ultimately from Enclosure.

How is your willingness to use state backed violence to defend this dubious claim objectively moral, whereas the state's forced appropriation of taxation is objectively immoral (or correct me if I have misrepresented the argument)?

Do you mean that the act of claiming property is itself an initiation of force? (like those that use more traditional use of the term anarchist to describe themselves do?)

As an aside, i'm only willing to use state backed violence to protect property rights because the state claims monopoly on the use of force; that is to say that my willingness to accept the state's valid uses of force shouldn't be interpreted as a recognition of the state's validity as an institution.

[Zero Liability]

Indeed but that's no different to relying on it to protect any of your other rights. I think in cases where it has either directly engaged in robbery, slavery etc. or assisted these practices, it is very questionable that the beneficiaries enjoy any real property rights over what the government then sells or gifts to them.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Oh, i see. Old Greg - you're asking how we can be so absolute about property rights now, given that land was forcibly taken and redistributed previously? Rather than how I can be so absolute with regards to property rights in principle?

I'd ask whether anyone has a better claim after such a long time? We can be objective about why we need property rights in the first place, and we can apply them going forwards.
Some people will have been wronged in the past, and other will be in a lucky position now. So what? If it's fixable to any degree then great, if not then tulip happens.

I think that what's important to remember is that those that benefit disproportionately today due to circumstance with regards to inheritance, etc, would be much less likely to do so in a free society. State enforced laws, regulations, etc, etc, all work to keep those in wealth & power where they are while creating barriers for those that might compete. Just look at the subsidies that farmers get - they don't even have to be profit making to keep their land. **edit** i should say they don't even have to break even.

[Old Greg]

Determining who is due what after centuries of state violence is a pretty convoluted topic and not amenable to one-size-fits-all answers, which is why I kept pressing for the actual relationships involved. The fact that some acquisition of property has been made due to the government does not imply all or even most of it has. It'd be nice if we could hit a reset button, however, as I am not particularly keen on people whose money derives from state privilege (or crime, more generally) keeping it, but equally we all know what came after the French Revolution, and how little it had to do with any notion of justice.

Faced with a dilemma, i.e. Parliament keeps it under its control or bequeaths it to someone else, I would have to say neither is a good option. But like I said, the relationship between Parliament and the electorate isn't necessarily one where Parliament is an agent of the former, or even a custodian over resources they may have entrusted it to control. There is nothing nearly as clear as the contract between a PLC and its shareholder, for instance, even though this is what the relationship is meant to mimic.

To give two concrete examples, in the case of a piece of unowned land, which the government merely proclaims ownership over, I see no problem with it bequeathing this to someone, though preferably it'd act in the interest of its principals (assuming the electorate is such) and sell it.

In the case of, e.g. the Royal Mail, you could make the argument either its workers or the taxpayers have higher claim over it and its assets than anyone to whom it is bequeathed.

Instances where land has been taken from someone (which is more or less how I understand the Enclosure) and they and any possible heirs are all out of existence resemble the first rather than the second scenario. However, if the government simply took it, you could always ask the question as to why the robber gets to determine where the property goes. Certainly in the case of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia, where similar events occurred, pushing masses of individuals into poverty, you could ask this question, so I see little reason why you couldn't of the British government.

Your dilemma is a false dichotomy. The status quo should have been preserved. As it was not any claim to the property is wrong.

[Old Greg]

Oh, i see. Old Greg - you're asking how we can be so absolute about property rights now, given that land was forcibly taken and redistributed previously? Rather than how I can be so absolute with regards to property rights in principle?

I'd ask whether anyone has a better claim after such a long time? We can be objective about why we need property rights in the first place, and we can apply them going forwards.
Some people will have been wronged in the past, and other will be in a lucky position now. So what? If it's fixable to any degree then great, if not then tulip happens.

I think that what's important to remember is that those that benefit disproportionately today due to circumstance with regards to inheritance, etc, would be much less likely to do so in a free society. State enforced laws, regulations, etc, etc, all work to keep those in wealth & power where they are while creating barriers for those that might compete. Just look at the subsidies that farmers get - they don't even have to be profit making to keep their land. **edit** i should say they don't even have to break even.

I have a right to healthcare I have decided. It needs your money. tulip happens.

[Zero Liability]

Your dilemma is a false dichotomy. The status quo should have been preserved. As it was not any claim to the property is wrong.

It is not false with respect to governments faced with this situation ex post facto, i.e. modern governments, burdened with such legacies. If you are asking was the action of Enclosure legitimate at the time, in all likelihood, no, it wasn't. But we're not in a position to reverse time.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I have a right to healthcare I have decided. It needs your money. tulip happens.

I have a right to get laid, so I'm gonna come around and rape your sister. tulip happens.

Two wrongs don't make a right <insert rim-shot>.

[Old Greg]

It is not false with respect to governments faced with this situation ex post facto, i.e. modern governments, burdened with such legacies. If you are asking was the action of Enclosure legitimate at the time, in all likelihood, no, it wasn't. But we're not in a position to reverse time.

It is perfectly possible to return the land to its previous status. You may think it is desirable to continue your occupation but two wrongs don't make a right. The world manages to return Nazi misappropriated art 70+ years in and will probably continue to do so for many years.