You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: “Voluntaryist” Adam Kokesh Advocates Fingerprinting Homesteaders and “Public Ownership” Via “Majority Consensus” Under His Centralized “Custodial Government”
Ownership of property is an issue that is hard for me to understand with libratarian/voluntaryism. Who would enforce such ownership and who would decide ownership?
I guess there are different answers depending if you ask for the philosophy or the practical implementation.
Ownership over your own body is a physical fact. We dont need nobody to decide or enforce. Only I have direct control over it anyways. External property is acquired by the work of your body so that you can claim a direct connection to your property. If you build a house, then it is your house since it was derived from something else you own, your work.
Other ways to acquire property include voluntary trade and first acquisition of natural resources to exploit them.
The philosophy is the practical implementation.
You still have to be able to defend your body to enforce that natural law, objective, biological and metaphysical reality. Namely, your self-ownership.
The house you built is a direct result of your body and life ownership, and using that body and your time/life to create the house. That is your direct, objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link to the property.
Allow me to present a hypothetical situations. Let's say that my property is considered to be 10 acres by me. Let's imagine that 5 of those acres are woodlot which is presently being allowed to grow so as to be used in a silviculture nature for wood home heating in the future.
If someone comes along and clears an acre of the land and builds a cabin on it would it now be excepted to belong to them or would the use of force be required to settle the matter?
Would you have altered/enhanced/improved the land being used for silviculture in any way?
For this example, no. No action taken on one's part... only intention.
My feeling is that instead of ownership an approach of stewardship may be better suited for a voluntariest's society so as to avoid force by violence. Some common agreement of good stewardship among the majority consensus of ones community may lead to less conflict because of the concept of ownership.
Ownership, in terms of one's person, makes total sense to me though.
The vaguely defined idea of stewardship potentiates violent conflict. That is the problem. We require, as individuals, scarce resources for survival and our wants and needs. With no universalizable, concrete reality based norm for how a man may acquire property, arbitrary, non-universalizable and violent conflict potentiating beliefs (such as the “divine right” or the “authority” of a badge) take over.
It seems to me that Stewardship is pretty straight forward if it is considered only to be that which will not harm (and ideally benefit) the area of Earth (the property) to which one is referring.
Normally conflict is more likely to arise when considerations are being made to somehow alter the terrain; thereby putting up some inaginaey boundary markers; by an action which may or may not be benificial to the marked out terrain and therefore would be an example of poor stewardship in the eyes of a culture raised to put The Mother first.
Perhaps the concept of ownership begets the violence?
Under the stewardship model you are advocating now, just so I can get a better picture of what you mean, would a house that I built myself be mine? What if I plant an apple tree next to it? Is that mine, as well?
Adam is not a voluntaryist. This is exactly what I am talking about. His political BS is confusing a very simple, clean, and clear philosophy based on the objective fact that we are all self-owners. That is to say, you are the highest authority over your own body and property.
If you’re interested in learning more this channel is a great resource: