To Alter Or To Abolish
Chapter 7
Property
Written by Darrell Anderson.
Private property is a natural fruit of labor, a product of intense activity of man, acquired through his energetic determination to ensure and develop with his own strength his own existence and that of his family, and to create for himself and his own an existence of just freedom, not only economic, but also political, cultural, and religious.
Pope Pius XII, radio broadcast, September 1, 1944
That every human possesses a desire to survive and possesses a concept of self creates boundaries for pursuing happiness while preventing trespass. Those boundaries raise important questions.
What are the immediate boundaries associated with the concept of self? The concept of preventing trespass necessarily implies a concept of self. If every human recognizes a boundary known as self, then every human can proceed uninhibited to pursue happiness. However, if all individuals possess this same concept of self then the pursuit of happiness can be impeded. Similarly, if the concept of self is meaningless, then the only principle is “might makes right.” Can any individual human be denied the natural desire to survive and pursue happiness?
If every human possesses a concept of self and desires to prevent trespass, then who may possess the resources used to sustain the human body? Is such possession permanent or, as with many other earthly animals, does the principle have meaning only until another human uses superior force or cunning to acquire those resources?
If all earthly resources are fundamentally derived from land, and using those resources is necessary for survival, then who possesses unfettered access to the land? Or is possession of land meaningless the moment a stronger or more cunning human moves in?
If every human possesses a desire to survive, and that survival depends upon resources, and those resources are fundamentally derived from land, then is each human allowed to protect that life and those resources — using force if necessary? Or is this another way of describing “might makes right”?
If possessing and using resources is a part of the natural order of existence to sustain life, is the concept of first possession a rational and acceptable idea? If not, then is the only acceptable principle one of mere adversarial raw acquisition and applies only to those who have the strength to confiscate?
Such questions have been debated for centuries.
Excluding hermits, every human is a member of numerous societies. Preventing interactions with other humans is impossible except for the most resolute hermit. Humans participate in societies because they are not self-sufficient.
Humans possess a desire to survive and a desire to define and pursue happiness. From those desires, humans want to prevent trespass. Despite the uncountable number of different societies, the pursuit of happiness and the desire to prevent trespass permeates throughout human thinking. Despite being unable to articulate such concepts, all living entities seem to affirm those desires.
Limited knowledge and the inescapable restriction of inefficiency means all humans desire to survive and pursue happiness with as little effort and interference as possible. People therefore usually will try to obtain more with less effort. Despite continually consuming, with additional consumption leading to additional production, and peaceful production leading to exchange and the division of labor, a question remains. Regardless of this effort to cooperate and exchange voluntarily, what happens when individuals make concurrent claims on specific resources, or somebody decides to adversarialy acquire resources possessed by other people? What happens when trespass occurs or might occur?
Although humans prefer to use the elements of persuasion and cooperation to pursue their definition of happiness, the principle of scarcity means competition occurs normally within human existence. Scarcity therefore forges an environment for potential conflict and trespass. The desire for mutual survival and happiness never completely eliminates the individual desire. That is, people will pursue their individual happiness and such action sometimes deprives other people of their happiness.
Biologically, raw acquisition is a legitimate instinctive choice to sustain energy flows. Therefore, collectively and individually, humans have a choice: they can live by “might makes right” (all against all), or they can embrace mutual survival to improve their individual chances of survival and to better secure their individual pursuit of happiness. That latter choice requires compromise.
A system model of “might makes right” requires a simple guidance structure. In short, the only principle is to survive. Or, worded in another manner, there are no formal, definitive principles. Under such a system you might be king of the hill today and somebody’s supper or garden fertilizer tomorrow. Because humans are capable of more than mere survival, generally humans have rejected that simple guidance process.
Because of a general lack of self-sufficiency, humans usually recognize the benefits of mutual survival. Because people generally accept that every human wants to survive, humans have embraced certain concepts and principles to promote mutual survival. For example, one generally accepted principle is that humans cannot kill one another except in immediate self-defense. Such a guiding principle certainly promotes the ideas of individual and mutual survival.
The pursuit of happiness usually means people are continually collecting, possessing, and using resources. Part of that collection satisfies basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing. Additional resources might include tools that help provide a more efficient pursuit of happiness. Accumulating things is a natural part of human existence.
Beginning with the concept of self, to encourage mutual survival, persuasion and cooperation, and to minimize conflicts and violence, humans collectively decide that some guidelines are needed to distinguish the boundaries of one individual from the boundaries of another. Because of the unpredictable and non-linear process of an uncountable number of human interactions, knowable boundaries are necessary to help define the concept of trespass and protect the concept of self. Those boundaries become knowable through a concept called property.[1]
What is property? Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition reveals:
Property: That which is peculiar or proper to any individual.
From Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language:
Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership.
Many animal species recognize boundaries through territoriality, but only humans recognize the more developed concept of property. Although similar, the two concepts should not be confused. There is no biological basis for property — the concept is one of human invention. Like other ideas, property is an abstract concept and is interpreted and arbitrary. Nonetheless, the concept has meaning if humans hope to encourage mutual survival and the liberty to pursue happiness.
The concept of property is a guiding conceptual principle humans use when they form relationships. Physics, philosophy, and common sense teach that no two tangible objects can concurrently occupy the same physical space, and only seldom can two humans use the same object concurrently. Straightforward physical existence means that occupying or using an object necessarily must often exclude others. The concept of property is a natural outgrowth of the desire to survive and satisfying needs and wants.[2]
The concept of property should not be confused with the concept of possession. Possession is the concept of physically holding or controlling something and is both physical and instinctive. The concept of property is a social convention that must be learned to override the biological urge for adversarial raw acquisition. The concept of property is a human invention that improves mutual survival and enhances the overall quality of life.[3]
Whereas the concept of territorialism is innate and instinctive, the human concept of property is learned. Although the historical origin of the concept of property is speculative, the modern concept is related to the principle of scarcity of resources.[4] Scarcity creates potential for competition, competition creates potential for conflict, conflict creates potential for violence, and violence creates potential for injury or death. Humans use the concept of property to avoid those obvious consequences. The concept of property exists for one purpose: to reduce conflict and avoid “might makes right.”[5] The concept of property is a human invention recognizing the desire to sustain energy flows while trying to prevent trespass. Discouraging trespass reduces conflict and promotes mutual survival. The concept of property is used to create knowable boundaries for using scarce resources and limiting the actions of people. Knowable boundaries help avoid conflicts over scarce resources.[6]
The concept of property is not necessarily possession of an object, but is more a recognition of jurisdiction over an object.[7] These objects are tangible resources, and include an individual’s body. Fundamentally, the concept of property represents controlled tangible access to a package of stored energy.
Title to property is the way people define boundaries and mutually recognize jurisdiction over specific resources. Title can be written and witnessed or simply acknowledged. Title can take the form of a deed, a bill of sale, a cash register receipt, usage, or often, mere possession. The concept of property and title is the recognition of the ability to exclude other people. The concept of exclusion means other people are not allowed to use a resource without the titleholder’s consent. As will be discussed later, this concept of exclusion opens the door to potential conflict.
For the concept of property to be useful, a title must be recognized and honored by everybody and also be knowable to potential trespassers. Property titles usually are honored if the titleholder is able to construct a title chain to demonstrate legitimate previous title transfers.
Some individuals refer to the concept of property as private property. However, property can be individually or collectively titled. Thus, instead of private property some individuals use the phrase several property to convey the idea that property might be jointly titled. (Within this book specific distinctions between the various forms or substance of property are irrelevant. Only the concept of property — knowable boundaries — is important.)
Additionally, often there are distinctions between the terms “personal property” and “private property” and those distinctions are not always apparent, especially for those individuals who believe the terms are redundant. By definition, the word property includes the attribute of exclusion; therefore, all property is both private and personal, regardless of form or substance or the number of titleholders.
Furthermore, the word “private” might be used to describe both movable (personalty) and immovable (realty) property, but the word “personal” could apply as well. Some people prefer the word “possessions” to distinguish movable property from immovable. By the nature of exclusion, communally or collectively owned property is owned privately or personally with respect to those people outside that particular community.[8]
Embedded within the concept of property, a property titleholder retains jurisdiction even when not maintaining physical possession of an object.[9] Allowing another individual to temporarily use property does not transfer title, but merely provides the user a license to use the property.[10] A license only provides usage rights.
The concept of property implies that an individual can transfer title to another individual. The idea of transferring title implies an ability also to abandon title.[11]
All exchanges of property are exchanges of title. Within the spirit and intent of the desire to prevent trespass, only titles to property recognized by individuals within a society may be exchanged. Despite physical possession, ownership of property obtained by prohibited methods (trespass) is not a recognized title.
Disputes regarding property are disputes about title to property — disputes about jurisdiction and control.
The concept of property is a natural outgrowth of self-interest and the concept of self. Every human body requires continual sustenance to survive. That sustenance requires acquiring, possessing, and consuming resources.
If people accept the idea that every human possesses a natural claim to survive — and that claim includes the boundary of self — then that claim also must include an ability to possess and use resources. Either people enjoy an ability to possess and control resources or they do not.[12] If people reject those foundations, then no other guiding principle has meaning other than “might makes right,” where adversarial raw acquisition displaces exchange. There is no in-between option.
The concept of self creates the most fundamental property boundary. Some individuals call that boundary self-ownership. However, to say that an individual “owns” his or her own body does not mean that title can be transferred, only that each individual is self-governing and self-determining. To say an individual owns his or her body means only that nobody else has a title claim — people cannot be owned by other people. The phrase “self-ownership” is a convenient way to convey the concept of the boundary of self.
Additionally, humans cannot separate their will or their essence from their body. Humans cannot alienate or abandon their body. To lien means to attach. To alienate means to detach. Thus, title to one’s body cannot be transferred.[13] That is another reason why many individuals refer to the claim to survival as immutable.
However, the idea that title to one’s body cannot be transferred does not mean that other people cannot be in control or possession of that body. The concepts of title and possession are not the same. In many societies, various acts of trespass can create a license for other people to control the body of another individual while not transferring title.[14] Additionally, in some societies certain contracts provide similar usage rights to another person’s body although not transferring title.
A cornerstone of the concept of property is that any unowned resource to which an individual adds his or her labor belongs to that individual. This concept was popularized by John Locke and is called the labor theory of value, adopted by many 19th century thinkers. A critical element is who possesses title to the resources and tools in which the products of labor are being added and what is received in exchange for that delivered product. The labor theory of value is flawed in at least one respect: in that labor is the conversion of energy into work and describes a process. Value is subjective and intangible, and is dependent upon many elements. Labor is not the sole element determining value. More importantly, labor is not something humans possess or have title in, but merely a process describing something people do. Labor is not a tangible object but a process of converting energy and applying a force to do work. Nobody can touch, hear, taste, see, or smell labor. Thus, the process of adding labor is not what creates property. Mixing labor with resources only provides openly knowable evidence of somebody already possessing and occupying resources.[15] The final product of applying labor is what is provided perceived exchange value.
Today, labor is commonly considered to be property. Many individuals presume that labor is a resource that is owned and people can offer their labor to other people. However, because labor is something humans do and not possess, what individuals actually are offering to other people are certain deliverables — specific tangible goods derived from that labor.
The misconception develops by substituting the process of labor for the products of labor. This traditional but flawed definition of labor as tangible property creates problems in various discussions. For example, many individuals disagree divisively about the concept of the surplus value of labor — which is derived from a labor theory of value. There is and never will be any agreement over that debate because the definition of labor is incorrect. Labor is intangible, not a thing. However, correctly define labor as a process and dramatically the surplus value of labor debate reduces to discussing the value of whatever is produced from the process of labor. Although still subjective because all value is subjective, discussing the exchange value of a tangible object is much easier than discussing the value of an intangible process of labor.
The concept of property is based upon possession and title to tangible resources, and labor is not tangible. However, the products of labor are tangible. The results of that process are classified as property.
Life itself is property.[16] Without a natural claim to one’s life, all other principles become meaningless. Built upon the recognition of the natural claim to life is the principle of sustaining that life and to sustain that life people use their own energy.
To promote mutual survival, obtaining title to resources requires explicit agreement to transfer that title. That is, after title to specific resources is affirmed, transferring that title requires agreement of the titleholder, otherwise trespass occurs.
An exception to that reciprocating process is the concept of first possession. The concept of first possession is a principle acknowledging that the first individual to occupy, possess, and control unclaimed natural resources has standing to claim title to the resource.[17] Implied within that claim is physically possessing or controlling the resource — mere “flag-in-the-ground” declarations are meaningless.[18] Some individuals refer to the concept of first possession as homesteading.
First possession or homesteading is a process of obtaining resources through raw acquisition. Possession is a normal and natural instinctive biological response to sustaining energy flows. Yet raw acquisition can peaceful or violent. The human concept of first possession differs from biological raw acquisition in that the concept limits raw acquisition to socially accepted avenues.
A similar claim of first possession to human made resources — resources previously possessed and created through the labor of another individual — is another issue. Claims to such resources might be valid, they might not. Researching the title chain is necessary to validate any such claim. A key is whether the previous titleholder has abandoned his or her claim to title.
Nature knows no systems. Therefore, within nature there is no concept known as first possession but only a random process of raw acquisition. Possession thereafter becomes a function of the physical ability to maintain control.[19] Most (but not all) living entities do not understand any concept or process of persuasion and cooperation, but only first-come first-serve. If no concept such as property exists then the principle of “might makes right” applies and the process of adversarial raw acquisition applies at all times and at any place. Subsequent parties may take from the first possessor if physically able — nature knows no principles.
This is how other life forms within nature generally operate. However, humans generally seek to be an exception to this observation. The concept of property exists to create knowable limits to the competition for various resources — the challenge of scarcity. Without a knowable boundary, the only practical limit to adversarial raw acquisition is the ability to take. The concept of property is an intellectual choice to reduce conflict and violence. The concept of property becomes a socially sanctioned peaceable extension to the concept of mere possession and control.[20] Whether humans embrace this exception as naturally occurring through evolution, or divinely ordained and naturally existing by God is irrelevant. The alternative is “might makes right.”
That all humans generally seek happiness in an efficient manner implies that all claims of property are economic claims. Economic claims are claims of efficiently sustaining energy flows. Land provides basic natural resources. Labor, technology, tools, and human ingenuity convert those resources into food, clothing, shelter, etc., to sustain energy flows. Therefore, there exists two concurrent social economic systems: one based upon raw acquisition as witnessed throughout much of nature, and one based upon a human concept of knowable boundaries to limit human action.[21]
![[Image: Author’s Pictorial Concept of Sustaining Energy Flows--The Social Concept of Property. Important to the text.]](../images/energy_flows_property1.gif)
Figure 4
Property titles define specific boundaries of control, provide knowable boundaries to promote the pursuit of happiness and discourage trespass. Avoiding trespass reduces conflict and violence. Without the concept of property people lose protections to life and the ability to sustain energy flows. The nineteenth century French philosopher, Frédéric Bastiat, declared:[22]
Exchange, like property, is a natural right. Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of giving it to whoever on the face of the earth consents to give him in exchange the object of his desires.
Deny the concept of property and the claim to life is quashed. When the claim to life is quashed the concept of self becomes meaningless. Therefore, to be coercively deprived of the fruits of one’s own labor is enslavement. Enslavement defies the accepted concept of self and opens the door to conflict and violence.
The concept of property discourages destructive competition and encourages cooperative competition. People embracing destructive competition usually recognize the concept of property, but also embrace that property titles may be transferred coercively and without consent. Deprive people of property titles and the means to survive are abridged, thereby creating conflict that otherwise never would exist. All conflict encourages a desire for individual survival, not mutual survival.
The purpose for developing a social system based upon the concept of property is to avoid conflict and violence. Preferring individual survival instead of mutual survival is a desire or willingness to embrace “might makes right,” increases fear, decreases a sense of security, and disrupts social order. Unless humans collectively choose “might makes right,” then the concept of property is critical to support peaceful mutual survival. How that concept is observed is critical toward promoting peaceful mutual survival.
Finis.
Next: Chapter 8 — Rights
Endnotes
[1] Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p. 5.
[2] Spencer, “The Proper Sphere of Government,” The Man Versus The State, pp. 208.
[3] Heilbronner, Robert, “The Future of Capitalism,” 1966, reprinted in Views on Capitalism, p. 215.
[4] Barnett, “A Consent Theory of Contracts,” p. 294.
[5] Thurow, The Zero-Sum Society, p. 130.
[6] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” pp. 1–2.
[7] Rand, Capitalism, p. 322.
[8] Despite all of these differences in definitions, unless specifically explained otherwise, throughout this book the terms “property,” “personal property,” and “private property” include multiple owners, both movable and immovable property, and communally owned property. The word property includes any resource associated with the concept of title, including those things called possessions. The source of that title and how title often is derived through force and coercion or political privilege is discussed in subsequent chapters.
[9] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” p. 12.
[10] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” p. 13.
[11] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” pp. 12–14.
[12] Spencer, “The Proper Sphere of Government,” The Man Versus The State, pp. 208–209.
[13] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” p. 14.
[14] Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract,” pp. 14–15.
[15] Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property,” pp. 26–31.
[16] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 83.
[17] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, p. 69.
[18] Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p. 64.
[19] Maine, The Ancient Law, p. 149.
[20] Maine, The Ancient Law, p. 151.
[21] Hirshleifer, “Natural Economy Versus Political Economy,” p. 321.
[22] Bastiat, Selected Essays on Political Economy, “Property and Law,” p. 112.