HeavenlyPossumApr 8, 2023
Labor Theory of Property is an outgrowth of settler colonialism and the ideological justifications for the latter.
Show threadHeavenlyPossumApr 9, 2023

Labor Theory of Property is predicated on the idea that a) there exists some unowned resources that you can justly acquire by b) mixing your discrete labor.

From the Roman terra nullis to Locke’s second treatise, this is the ideology of settler colonialism: the fantasy of the lone pioneer braving the empty frontier.

But, in a world of billions of people who have been around as a species for hundreds of thousands of years, there is nothing meaningfully “unowned” by these standards. And, except at the extreme margins, all labor is cooperative.

Show threadHeavenlyPossum

In reality, property does not emerge inexorably from a single metaphysical source. Property is a social relationship, an agreement about the use and disposition of stuff, designed to reduce the possibility of conflict over stuff.

Sometimes that agreement is imposed and enforced, as with capitalist private property. Sometimes, it is reached voluntarily between free and equal people. In those cases, people tend towards some combination of:

- common property in resources, so that no one can be denied the chance to sustain themselves by their own labor;

- personal property in the things they themselves make through their labor; and

- a strong ethos of mutual aid so no one is reduced to a subordinate status by accidents or circumstance.

To the extent that we care about people owning the product of their own labor, I believe we should do so because it maximizes human freedom while minimizing the risk of conflict. But we absolutely don’t have to give any due to “natural law” or monsters like John Locke to reach that point.

Apr 9, 2023 at 11:51amWeb
Show threadHeavenlyPossumApr 9, 2023
(And yes, John Locke was a monster who, despite his rhetoric about human freedom, became rich through the sale of human beings as slaves and authored the odious Constitutions of Carolina, the first attempt at legally structuring a slave state in the Americas).
Show threadLeisureguyApr 9, 2023

@HeavenlyPossum

Your property categories do not include real property (i.e, land) nor inherited property (i.e., the house my parents built).

If my parents built through their own labor (or through consensual exchanges to obtain labor from artisans — if, say, my parent lacked the skills to build a house but had other skills that could repay those with house-building skills) — and they left me the house would it be mine? And what about the land on which it sits?

What about bad actors?

Show threadHeavenlyPossumApr 9, 2023

@Leisureguy

In societies of free people living as equals (and I’m speaking very broadly here), land is typically owned in common (where it’s productive) and personally (for homes), though extended families tend to be more common than nuclear. To the extent that people might face exclusion from homes as personal property, many societies make use of norms of sacred guesting to ensure that no one can be excluded into penury.

I don’t understand what you mean by “what about bad actors.” What about them?

Show threadLeisureguyApr 9, 2023

@HeavenlyPossum

If I understand, a house is considered personal property and can be given (as to heirs), but land (being productive) is not property and must be shared — though my own garden (I presume) is mine by virtue of its being a product of my own labor.

A bad actor would quickly plant a garden in the best garden location because they can thus claim it by virtue of their own labor in planting it.

No one owns any land except for their house and garden? Or is everything grown shared?

Show threadHeavenlyPossumApr 9, 2023

@Leisureguy

I don’t understand what you’re asking. Are you asking about how people actually behave in the actual world, or is this a purely hypothetical scenario? “A bad actor sneaking and quickly planting a garden in the best location” is not a feature of any nonstate society I’m familiar with.

I’m also explicitly arguing *against* a natural law theory of property deriving intrinsically from labor, so I don’t really understand what you’re trying to get at.

Show threadLeisureguyApr 9, 2023

@HeavenlyPossum

I'm trying to understand two things: 1) Property ownership vis-à-vis real property (land) & also products of one's own labor — that is, which products of labor must be shared and which one can keep. Food, for example: if I labor alone in a garden, must the food I grow be shared?

2) How communities deal with rogue/uncooperative members, especially those who choose their victims carefully or hoard

It's hard to build arguments in 500 characters. This forum may not be a good fit.

Show threadHeavenlyPossumApr 9, 2023

@Leisureguy

Elinor Ostrom’s “Governing the Commons” offers a great overview of the management of common property. Very broadly, people tend to own resources like land in common, with individuals enjoying usufruct rights. As I noted in the post that you responded to, people in these societies tend to own the fruits of their labor but often share a portion of those with each other. “Must” isn’t really operative in societies without coercive hierarchies.

Societies deal with disagreements in a variety of ways, the most common of which include “talking to each other,” ranging through sanctions like social reproach all the way to lethal self-defense against aggression.

Show threadSteve Moore Apr 9, 2023
@HeavenlyPossum
Another example of the conflict between an #Indigenous concept of property and that of #Colonial #Capitalism
https://northernjournal.substack.com/p/yakutat-tribal-leader-fears-loss?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Yakutat tribal leader fears loss of land as bank sues Southeast Alaska village corporation for $13.3 million

Leaders of Yakutat's village corporation say they didn't pledge land as collateral for loans they took out to start a logging business. But some fear tribal land could be sold to satisfy the debt.

Northern Journal