freeblrBETA

Economics

Home Economics Text

An individualist formulation of collectivist property

by Anaarkei

Accepting that objective morality and individual property rights are true, that is, they are accurate and valid, one can therefore make the case that collective property rights are true.

Put simply, each individual has an exclusive claim (or right) to their body. Their consciousness, an effect of the body, is in control of the various voluntary functions of that body. Since individuals external to the body cannot make such a claim without performative contradiction, each individual's claim is exclusive. Logically, if an individual has an exclusive claim to their body, they also have an exclusive claim to the effects of their body. Such effects include their life and liberty. A subset of one's life and liberty is labour, the application of one's time, effort, and talents on the physical world. When an individual uses their labour to transform an unclaimed object they mix a part of their life and liberty with that object. The object in question therefore can be exclusively claimed by the individual. Such a claim creates a condition of ownership, whereby an object external to one's body becomes property. This is the basis of individual property rights.

Property can be used as the owner desires. It can also be traded to other individuals, a process of abandoning one's exclusive claim while simultaneously assigning it to the other party and receiving the other party's property in exchange. Gifting is another use of property whereby one abandon's their exclusive claim by assigning it to another individual without receiving anything in exchange. One can also simply abandon their exclusive claim outright without assigning it to another party, leaving it open for another to claim.

If an individual can simultaneously (and voluntarily) abandon their exclusive claim and assign it to another individual through the act of trading or gifting, or abandon their exclusive claim altogether, they can also assign their exclusive claim to other individuals while simultaneously holding a share of that exclusive claim. This act of inclusion might coincide with an exchange of value with the prospective party contributing something to the owner in exchange for assignment of partial ownership, or it might simply involve the owner assigning partial ownership as a gift to the prospective party. It is worth mentioning that collective property does not necessarily need to begin as individual ownership, as two or more individuals may labour on an unowned object and agree to share ownership of the new property.

There is no reason to suggest that an exclusive claim must always be limited to a single individual. Exclusivity simply means excluding others from a claim, it does not specify that others cannot be assigned a portion of that claim by the owner.1 The size of each share might be equally distributed amongst the owners or some other arrangement might be preferred. For those who have socialist2 economic preferences, such arrangements might be called a commune. For those who have capitalist2 economic preferences, such arrangements might be called a company. There may even be those interested in pursuing meritocratic arrangements.3 For the sake of brevity, the specifics of such arrangements will not be discussed here.

At all times each individual reserves the right to divest themselves of their share of the collectivised exclusive claim to property. If they voluntarily entered into the sharing of property, they must also be able to voluntarily abandon their share. Such an abandonment might entail receiving compensation equal to the value of the share they are divesting themselves of (an exchange or trade), or it might entail total abandonment (gifting their share to another individual or leaving their abandoned claim open for another to claim in their stead).

At no point does collective property imply nor justify statist ownership as a collective property right, otherwise known as "public property". While monopoly governments may claim ownership over the territory they occupy, that does not mean their claim is valid. History shows that governments were not formed through voluntary means, but rather through coercive means (which clearly invalidates their claim to collective property). Even if, for the sake of argument, such claims were somehow valid, they would be invalidated by the fact that individuals are not free to divest themselves of their share of the collective property. If individuals were free then there would be no imposition of compulsory payments (taxation) to fund the maintenance and protection of the property. An individual who does not acquiesce to the demands of monopoly government will find themselves either kidnapped (arrested and imprisoned) or murdered4 for daring to resist the state's invalid claims.

To summarise, property can be claimed by a single individual and later assigned to other individuals to form collective property. Property can also claimed by a collective from its inception. The formation and dissolution of collective property necessarily rests on voluntary and mutual agreement between individuals. The share of collective property that each individual owns can be equal, based on merit, or based on some other arrangement. Individuals are free to divest themselves of collective property. Monopoly governments, or states, do not have a valid claim to collective property ("public property") as individuals are not free to divest themselves.

Notes

  1. This holds true for physical objects external the the body, as the body itself cannot be claimed as property by an external entity while it is occupied by a sovereign consciousness, for to do so would be a contradiction, a denial of reality.
  2. The words socialist and capitalist as used here are defined in terms of their stateless varieties.
  3. Meritocracy is used here to mean an arrangement whereby one is assigned a share of the property based on their merit, such as how much how much time, effort, and talent they apply to maintaining or improving the property.
  4. If one resists the state for long enough, the guns of government will be drawn. If one tries to defend themselves against such aggression they will be shot or similarly brutalised.

You might be interested in . . .

Have questions? Get answers!

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Resources

You can make use of the following text and video to expand your knowledge and understanding of the topic covered in this unit.

A History Of Economic Booms And Busts

An Anti-Capitalism Anarcho-Capitalist

An Orgy Of Innovation

An Individualist Formulation Of Collectivist Property

Are Market Anarchists For Or Against Capitalism?

Are We Better Off If We Buy Local?

Beyond the Boss: Protection From Business In A Free Nation

Can Artists Make Money Without Copyrights?

Capitalism

Comparative Advantage And The Tragedy Of Tasmania

Designing Poverty

Division Of Labour: Burgers And Ships

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

Does The Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?

Econ Chronicles: Everything’s Amazing And Nobody’s Happy

Econ Chronicles: Can Capitalism Save Lives?

Econ Chronicles: Foreigners Are Our Friends

Econ Chronicles: Four Ways Economists Think We’re All Wrong

Econ Chronicles: Make Progress, Not Work

EconPop: The Economics Of Back To School

EconPop: The Economics Of Cast Away

EconPop: The Economics Of Dallas Buyers Club

EconPop: The Economics Of Demolition Man

EconPop: The Economics Of Elysium

EconPop: The Economics Of Ghostbusters

EconPop: The Economics Of House Of Cards

EconPop: The Economics Of It’s A Wonderful Life

EconPop: The Economics Of The Hudsucker Proxy

EconPop: The Economics Of The Lego Movie

EconPop: The Economics Of The Shawshank Redemption

EconPop: The Economics Of The Treasure Of Sierra Madre

EconPop: The Economics Of RoboCop

EconPop: The Economics Of WALL-E

Externalities: Market Failure Or Political Failure?

Fair Trade: Does It Help Poor Workers?

Fear The Boom And Bust

Fight Of The Century

Free Markets And Monopoly

How The Division Of Knowledge Saved My Son’s Life

Is Capitalism Moral?

Is Laissez-Faire Capitalism Exploitative?

Is Price Gouging Immoral?

Is The Cost Of Living Really Rising?

Jeff’s Story

Kill Private Capital, Kill Civilisation

Market Prices — Purpose Vs Arbitrariness

Marx As Utopian

McDonald’s And The Minimum Wage

Micro vs Macro Economics

Minimum Wage Business Realities

Minimum Wage Is A Cruel Policy For Poor People

Monopolies In A Stateless Society

On Overcoming Scarcity

On Slavery In A Free Market

Opportunity Costs: The Parable Of The Broken Window

Ownership Of The Product By Capitalists

Private Property Or Possession: A Synthesis

Should You Need The Government’s Permission To Work?

Subjective Value

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory

The Broken Window Fallacy

The Hockey Stick Of Human Prosperity

The Most Dangerous Monopoly: When Caution Kills

The Top Three Myths About The Great Depression

The Truth About Savings And Consumption

The Truth About The Minimum Wage

Three Reasons You Can’t Find A Job

What Are The Myths Of Socialism?

What Is Austrian Economics?

What Is Exploitation?

What Is Free Banking And Why Should I Care?

What Is Property?

What Prices “Know” That You Don’t

Why Does One Percent Of History Have Ninety-nine Percent Of The Wealth?

Did you know that the creator of freeblr is on Minds?

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL