The State and Land

The continuing conversation regarding immigration has moved on to some of the finer points – at least finer for me.

Can the State “Own” Anything?

I think I have played a little fast and loose with the term “own” when it comes to its application to the state.  I have previously defined the term “own” as control, use and disposition.  If left at this, I believe it is safe to say that the state owns F-16 fighter jets, aircraft carriers, the White House, etc.

But “own” implies legitimacy in possessing the object.  A thief certainly possesses the stolen goods; a thief has the control, use and disposition of the stolen goods.  Is it appropriate to conclude that the thief “owns” the goods?

I think not.  As the state possesses its goods via the theft of taxation and inflation, I think it is inaccurate to say that the state “owns” anything.  More accurately, the state – like a common burglar – is in possession of stolen goods.  The state “possesses” but does not “own.”

What Does it Mean to “Own” Land?

From my understanding, libertarian theory regarding ownership begins with the homestead principle:

The homestead principle is the principle by which one gains ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation. Appropriation could be enacted by putting an unowned resource to active use (as with using it to produce a product), joining it with previously acquired property or by marking it as owned (as with livestock branding).

To discuss homesteading, the starting point is John Locke:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

When it comes to land, what does it mean to mix his labor with the land?  If there is an objective standard, I cannot come to it.  Certainly if one clears the trees and farms the cleared land regularly, this seems straightforward.  What if he has a ten-year plan for land-clearing, regularly clearing one portion at a time?   What if he leaves one section fallow for a season?

Then there is the homebuilder – he clears the land and builds a home.  What if he leaves some land on his “property” in its natural state?  Is it open to anyone else to homestead?  Then again, just because he claims an entire continent – building a home but otherwise leaving virtually all of it in its natural state, is it deemed that he owns it?

It seems to me that even putting a fence around property could be sufficient to meet the principle of mixing one’s labor with the land.  I say could, because it is easy to imagine a situation where it is rather unreasonable.  For example, what if it was claimed that the fence captured all the land outside of it rather than inside? 

Imagine the first individual to cross into Oklahoma at the time of the land rush of 1889 (yes, I know he wasn’t actually the first…and I know the example isn’t perfect).  What if, the moment he crossed into the region, he dropped a fence of one foot in diameter: “All outside of this boundary is mine!”

So I imagine custom has something to do with this. 

The More That Things Change

All the same we take our chances

Laughed at by time

Tricked by circumstances

Plus ca change

Plus c'est la meme chose

The more that things change

The more they stay the same

-Neil Peart

I want to explore something I touched on a few weeks ago:

It is virtually impossible to keep up with the mess that is US foreign policy.  It was so much simpler when we only had to keep track of the lies told about the Soviet Union (ah, the good old days).  But now?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine.  China and Russia.  Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel – supposedly US allies all – are they aiding or fighting ISIS?  Where did ISIS come from, anyway?  Are ISIS and al-Qaeda in cahoots or are they enemies?  Iran (an enemy of the US) is supporting Iraq (a mess created by the US) against ISIS (supposedly an enemy of the US).  The Kurds fight ISIS and are fought by Turkey.  Syria fights ISIS and is attacked by…the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is both my friend and my enemy all at the same time.  Even with a scorecard, I can’t keep track of the players.

History Doesn't Rhyme, But it Repeats Itself

Yes, I meant to write it that way.  In this case, the British experience in the Middle East during the Great War; from A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin. 

I could make a long story short, tell me if this sounds familiar: the British Americans felt that if they just found the right Arab leader, he could draw all of the factions together to achieve the desired end – the defeat of the Ottomans  Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, and on; they felt that by paying for conscripts, they would buy loyalty and staying power; that Christians from the West would be viewed as welcome liberators from their current Muslim ruler; the soldiers, once trained and armed, they would prove to be fierce fighters; setbacks could be solved via more money.  They believed what they were sold at the Middle Eastern bazaar; it was forgotten or ignored that the Arabs were masters of negotiation and double-dealing.

1915 or 2015?

You can stop here if you are not interested in some of the details – details that could be taken from today’s news pages, updated only for dates and names.

For the rest of you….

Now It Comes to This

In the ongoing discussion of fractional reserve banking as fraud, AA8 September 1, 2015 at 8:39 AM offered a very helpful comment.  I suggest you read it in its entirety.

In a reply to an early comment, AA8 offers:

I’m afraid I agree with bionic’s refutations of your points.

Thank you…but don’t be afraid, I don’t bite…well wait, I am a mosquito…and bionic at that…never mind.

This does not mean that AA8 agrees with my view on FRB:

The current depository contract is comprised of not just explicit but also implicit contract terms supplied by the context of cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations.

Thank you again, you have made my point. 

That a bank advertisement might say “Your money is safe with us” is not a statement of bailment.  It could just as easily apply to today’s banking practice – and given the overwhelming weight of “cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations,” this would be the only reasonable conclusion.  In any case, since 1934 it has been an absolute fact.

People are stupid or dupes, this is the entirety of the argument.  Of course, people might also choose to accept some interest income and no bank fees for a small amount of risk.  You do not know and cannot know the extent that this is true.  So people may not be as stupid as you need them to be to make your construct work.

How “cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations” are developed or have come to be might make for interesting studies for Ph.D. candidates in sociology and the like, but this does not change the reality – they are, in any case, “cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations.”

Where “cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations” violate the NAP, of course an issue should be raised.  There is no violation of the NAP in today’s deposit contract (if you want to argue that the government backing makes it a violation, I will thank you again for making my point – the issue is the monopoly, full stop).

Inflation is not a violation of the NAP – value is subjective: you deposit a dollar, you receive a dollar; this much is assured.  I cannot think of any industry with a higher level of success – billions of successful transactions every day for 80 years.

One side of virtually every single economic transaction in the world involves the product of this banking system.  There is no other economic good more widely utilized.  It doesn’t get more “cultural norms, generally accepted practices, and reasonable expectations” than that.

New Supreme Court Chief Justice

Well, after Andrew Napolitano…

Roger Goodell is commissioner of the National Football League.  For those who care, he flexed his muscle against Tom Brady – giving him a term in the pen for what was little more than jaywalking (if that).

Brady took it to court, and today won:

In a major setback for the N.F.L., New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady prevailed in his battle to have his four-game suspension overturned Thursday, as a federal judge reversed a ruling by Commissioner Roger Goodell to bench one of the league’s biggest stars in a dispute over underinflated balls he used in a January championship game.

Judge Richard M. Berman of Federal District Court in Manhattan did not rule on whether Brady tampered with the footballs in a bid for competitive advantage. Instead, he focused on the narrower question of whether the collective bargaining agreement between the N.F.L. and the players union gave Goodell the authority to carry out the suspension. Judge Berman ruled that it did not.

Judge Berman ruled that the commissioner was not following the contract, something that would be nice to hear once in a while from the US supreme court regarding the US president and the constitution.

For those who care about application of the constitution in the US, I suggest that Judge Berman is your man.

Well, after Judge Napolitano.

Closing the Circle

“Obama to Call for More Icebreakers in Arctic as U.S. Seeks Foothold,” so says the New York Times.  Let’s see what lies are given for this action:

President Obama on Tuesday proposed speeding the acquisition and building of new Coast Guard icebreakers that can operate year round in the nation’s polar regions, part of an effort to close the gap between the United States and other nations, especially Russia, in a global competition to gain a foothold in the rapidly changing Arctic.

Keep that “especially Russia” part in mind.

Apparently global warming is opening new opportunities:

The retreat of Arctic sea ice has created opportunities for shipping, tourism, mineral exploration and fishing, but the rush of marine traffic that has followed is bringing new difficulties.

Global Warming – they spend money to stop it and they spend money to hope it continues (I know it is a hoax, no comments on this, please).  Typical of government: heads they win, tails we lose.

“The growth of human activity in the Arctic region will require highly engaged stewardship to maintain the open seas necessary for global commerce and scientific research, allow for search-and-rescue activities, and provide for regional peace and stability,” the [White House] statement said.

Where is the statement about “we are doing it for the children”?

The aging Coast Guard fleet is not keeping pace with the challenge, the administration acknowledged, noting that the service has the equivalent of just two “fully functional” heavy icebreakers at its disposal, down from seven during World War II. Russia has 41 of the vessels, with plans for 11 more.

If you’ve ever seen a map, it is clear why Russia has so many icebreakers.  Their entire northern border is in the Arctic; the sea offers transport from one end of Russia to the other.

The initiatives aren’t limited to building icebreakers:

In addition, Mr. Obama announced an initiative by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard to map and chart the newly accessible Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

And then, a surprising hint of truth:

Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska, a political independent who traveled to Anchorage with Mr. Obama on Air Force One on Monday, said he was concerned that the United States military was drawing down in his state just as Russia was flexing its muscles.

“It’s the biggest buildup of the Russian military since the Cold War,” Mr. Walker said, noting Alaska’s proximity to Russia. “They’re reopening 10 bases and building four more, and they’re all in the Arctic, so here we are in the middle of the pond, feeling a little bit uncomfortable.”

What does all of this have to do with closing the circle?  I offer Sir Halford Mackinder and his speech at the Royal Geographic Society in 1904.  I commented on this speech here.  The key point of the speech is the large land mass extending from Eastern Europe through Central and Eastern Asia (from my post):

In it, he describes the value of the sea to Britain, as it was to other empires before – such as Rome.  He further describes the value of large land areas to the invading tribes from Central Asia; inefficient for horse and camel, but this is changing.  The railroad will allow these large land masses to be controlled from within.  For Britain, which until then had successfully established beachheads on virtually every coast of the world, this could very well render naval power and access futile.

Britain, at the time, had this region surrounded on three sides:

He describes four “marginal regions” bordering this central land mass: two in “monsoon lands” (one facing the Pacific and the other towards the Indian Ocean); one is Europe.  These three, with less than 7 million square miles, carried two-thirds of the world’s population.

Then there is the “Nearer East,” the sparsely populated regions of Babylonia, Syria, and Egypt.  This fourth region is “the weakest spot in the girdle of early civilizations.” 

The land mass is more valuable than control of the oceans.  The resources and population offer wealth far greater than available elsewhere – to the people who control it.

And this – whether accurate or not – is explanatory of many of the Anglo wars of the last century; wars fought to control the border regions of this land mass and then wars fought to tighten the noose…so to speak.

Japan and South Korea in the east, West Germany to the west; Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan; East Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Croatia; Ukraine. 

But, this large land mass is surrounded on only three sides.  The north is open.

And with this, I close the circle: go back to the top of this post. 

Thick and Thin

Robert Wenzel posted a video, a debate between Sheldon Richman and Walter Block regarding left-libertarianism.  It is worth watching, beginning where Robert has indicated (I did not watch what preceded this).  My comment regarding the debate (with some comments for clarification now added), posted at Target Liberty:

There are three separate issues, I believe:

First: libertarian theory is libertarian theory - the NAP based on property rights. There are no "shoulds" or "buts" to this. Block is correct. How someone comes to accept this is unimportant - that they accept it is important. Again, Block is correct.

And Richman is incorrect.  Twice.

Second, how to achieve a libertarian society is a different issue. Promotion of the thinnest definition makes for the biggest tent. Repetitively…Block is correct.

Again, Richman is incorrect.

How to maintain a libertarian society, if ever achieved, is a third. Different communities are free to establish different [cultural – meaning property owners are free to discriminate] standards - call these non-libertarian standards achieved via libertarian means. I haven’t read or heard anything from Block on this.

Not to suggest Block hasn’t written on this (is there anything libertarian upon which Block hasn’t written?), just that I haven’t read it.

I have read Hoppe on this and I have read, in a more general sense, those self-described left-libertarians. I believe Hoppe is correct. However, as long as different communities are free to go their own way, this need not be a point of contention; yet by bastardizing points one and two, left-libertarians make it so.

This is where the modifiers can properly come in, and not before.  In other words, as long as different communities are free (or not) to establish in a libertarian way certain discriminatory rules (call it culture), there is no conflict between so-called left and other libertarians.  Live and let live in the one of ten thousand different libertarian communities that best fits your desires.

In the interview, Richman suggests Block hasn’t read the right stuff on left-libertarianism.  He offers as the best work a piece by Charles Johnson, “Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin: What Kind of Commitment Is Libertarianism?”

Well, I have read it.  Here goes:

To what extent should libertarians concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects, or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion?

Which social movements should they oppose, which should they support, and toward which should they counsel indifference? And how do we tell the difference?

Johnson offers that “at least four other kinds of connections might exist between libertarianism and further social commitments….” 

At least he said “might.”

Thickness for Application

If feminists are right about the way in which sexist political theories protect or excuse systematic violence against women, there is an important sense in which libertarians, because they are libertarians, should also be feminists.

The initiation of violence or force is covered quite perfectly by the NAP; I see no need to garble it.  Johnson disagrees.