Property and the Use of Property
Written by Robert Haden
As an anarcho-capitalist, I see ownership as entailing three kinds of right: the right to use (jus utendi), the right to the fruit(s) of use (jus fruendi), and the right to abandon (jus abutendi). This is very similar to, if not the same as, the Roman-law treatment of ownership.
In my experience with traditional anarchists so far, I have seen that much of it is in agreement with anarcho-capitalism. For example, it seems clear to me that they believe a person possesses the right to use something once he comes into contact with it. Maybe a better way to put it is that they think it’s right for a person to continue using what he’s already started to use. As I see it, that’s the jus utendi component of what I call “ownership”.
Likewise, it seems clear to me that they think it’s right for a person to start using what he’s created from other things that he’s already been using. As I see it, that’s the jus fruendi component of what I call “ownership”.
It also seems clear to me that they think it’s right for a person to stop using something he’s been using, at which point they think it’s right for another person to start using it. As I see it, that’s the jus abutendi component of what I call “ownership”.
Finally, it seems clear to me that they think it’s not right for a person to (try to) use something that someone else is already using. This is the exclusionary aspect of what I call “ownership”. In other words, an owner of something possesses the exclusive rights to use, enjoy the fruit(s) of use, and abandon the thing.
So if anarcho-capitalists and traditional anarchists agree on these things – and it seems clear to me that they do – the dispute lies somewhere else and is more fundamental. It seems evident to me that the dispute is over the meaning of the verb “use”.
Let’s say that I cut down some trees and mill them into lumber. Then I offer to pay a friend to take that lumber and build a house with it. I think there are two basic ways to evaluate the result. If I’m considered to retain ownership of the lumber, then I’d presumably own the result of my friend acting on/with that lumber, which is the house. Otherwise, if my friend is considered to acquire ownership of the lumber upon taking it and acting on/with it, then he’d presumably own the house.
It seems clear to me that traditional anarchists think I’m no longer using the lumber once I give it to my friend to build a house with it. In other words, once I give him that lumber, they think I’ve abandoned my rights to use it and enjoy the fruit(s) of using it. On the other hand, I don’t think giving my friend that lumber to build a house with entails abandoning those rights at all.
Therein lies the fundamental difference between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism. Basically anarcho-capitalists ascribe a broader meaning to “use” than traditional anarchists, such that a person can still be said to be using something himself even if he’s hired or otherwise directed someone else to do something with it. Under traditional anarchism, only the person who’s (most) directly acting on or with something can be said to be using it.
I think there are some interesting implications to taking the traditional anarchist view of things here. For one thing, it means exclusive individual ownership of something can only be said to exist when an individual labors for it entirely on his own. If anyone else labors for it with him, then the other person becomes part owner, either jointly or separably. Since there are multiple sub-traditions within the anarchist left – individualist anarchism, mutualism, and different forms of social anarchism – I wonder if there are different opinions within traditional anarchism about the kind of part-ownership the other person is said to acquire.
Finally, another difference that I’ve heard some traditional anarchists say about anarcho-capitalism is that is has a “gun in the room” in that it is okay to (for example) shoot someone dead for simply setting foot on someone’s property without his permission.
As I see it, a person on my property could be trespassing – that is, interfering with my use of my property. Whether he’s physically damaging my property or not is irrelevant to me. However, that doesn’t mean I think I have the right to kill him simply for standing within my property when I don’t want him to. I think killing him for that would be an extremely immoral (i.e. unjust) act on my part. In my opinion, it would only be legitimate to kill him if he was threatening my own life. Of course, in trying to coerce him off of my property, he may
resist to the point where I reasonably perceive him to indeed be threatening my own life. I still see nothing wrong with killing him in that case. If that constitutes a “gun in the room”, so be it. I have no problem with that.
However, I think one could just as easily say there’s a “gun in the room” with traditional anarchism – it’s just pointed in the opposite direction. What I mean is that traditional anarchists seem to think it would be right for (what I see as) the trespasser to kill me if I come to be threatening his life.
It seems to me that the moral/ethical principles espoused by traditional anarchists are an instance of “putting the cart before the horse” – i.e. they espouse those moral/ethical principles because of the consequences they see coming from their consistent application. Those consequences are the elimination of profit, interest, and rent. In that case, they don’t oppose profit, interest, and rent because of those moral/ethical principles.
So what is/are the “real” (i.e. underlying) reason(s) for their opposition to these things? It seems to me that profit, interest, and rent are expressions of unequal power and that’s why traditional anarchists are opposed to them – which means that their aim is equality of power. I think one can see this even in their personal behavior, if one looks carefully enough.
Maybe I’m biased, but what’s interesting to me is that anarcho-capitalism doesn’t seem to “put the cart before the horse”. The object of self-ownership is just that – self-ownership. The object of freedom is freedom. Nothing more, really. At least, that’s the way I see it. There are many anarcho-capitalists who do see it differently.
Hi, Im ancom. I will try to explain it to you some of your points.
1)In a monetary system(not in communism) if you cut some trees and you hire me to build you a house and you pay me directly my labor,(assumming that we agreed on the price previously) its perfectly ok! I keep the money, you keep the house, I have no claim on your house, its perfectly yours! What we dont like is when I work for a capitalist, he agrees with you on the price of MY LABOR, then I DO THE WORK, then you pay HIM and then he gives me a portion of the money he recieved from you, and keeps a portion for himself WITHOUT doing actual labor. This portion that he recieves this way is called profit, and I am against that, because he is robbing me from some part of the money that I have earned with MY LABOR!
In a communist economy, however(I mean ANCOM, not marxist-leninist state), there are no money, so the work is done in a dramatically different matter : the first way is YOU build your house yourself and your house stays yours. The second way is you work whatever you like to work in your city for example, but you are not payed in money, you are payed in labor. That means if you work as a teacher for example, your working hours that you worked are written on a card(for example). This month you worked as a teacher 50 hours. You can exchange this for, lets say, 70 hours of carpenter work. So, I come in your house and work 70 hours for you. This way I have earned 70 hours of carpenter work, and I can exchange them for the work or products of other people.
2) With the respect of your “gun ownership” and your right of self-defence we have no problem here. I think that is some misunderstanding, because, sometimes is hard for ancap to read anarchist literature and to understand everything, because we use a slightly different philosophy and concepts.
3) as for profit, interest, rent:
a)Profit: when I work for you directly and you pay my work as in the above example, I DONT MAKE PROFIT! it means that you paid me the work that I ACTUALLY DID, and this is just – it is exactly what I want, but it is not profit.
However, if a capitalist buys a fabric, and hires me, and I work in that fabric and create a product, what happens? He takes the product of my labor and sells it.Then, he pays me a portion of the price of the labor that took me to create the product. The rest of the money he keeps for himself – THIS IS HIS PROFIT!But he didnt work for it, it is actually a part of MY COMPENSATION FOR MY WORK! You can argue that he made the investment, but MONEY IS NOT WORK – money is dead labor. Money doesent create wealth.Wealth is created by WORK! If we have trillions of dollars, but no workers, these dollars cant create chairs, tables, houses, etc. Workers create chairs, tables, houses, etc. Money should be just a medium of exchange. However, they are easy to use to create wealth for capitalists that dont work, just because capitalists buy means of production and pays workers. This way one capitalist can exploit millions of workers and earning profit, which is actually created by the workers.
b) interest; the same way, interest is theft and exploatation – when a banker lends money and seeks interest, the interest is actually a theft from the one that is paying it.Lets say a banker lends me 100$ with 10% interest. This means that I should give him back 110$.However, as we seen, money represents work. So in order to earn these money I have to work, lets say, 11 hours. The last one hour i work to earn the money for the interest, that means that in this hour I am his “slave” – I work for him, basically for free. This way bankers steal trillions of manworking hours from the people that actually done the work(sometimes with the risk of their health and lives).They “earn” billions and trillions of dollars without creating chairs, tables, houses, etc., without any sweat on their body!
c) rent: the rentier(the one that gives rent, whats the word in english?) gives an apartament to me for one month for a rent of 100$. In order for me to pay him the rent, I must WORK, lets say, 10 hours. I msut create WEALTH, i.e., some products that are useful for someone(or some services, doesent matter)This means that I basically work as a “slave”(in a sense) for 10 hours overy month, in other words, he takes some portion of what I produced without paying it to me, in other words, he is stealing from me. Does he create WEALTH, i.e. products and services for the society with his own labor?No. But he is recieving 100$ for NOT WORKING, in other words he is stealing from me or from society. BEcause, if I didnt payed him to NOT work, I could pay another person for a product that he created.
These are the reasons that we think like that on these specific areas. Of course, this means that we should defend this position, but this is beyond the scope of this post. It is defended millions of times, I would suggest you to READ THE WHOLE “Anarchist FAQ” on the internet(just google it) for a start.
Just another note here: anarchists in general and ancoms in private ARE not against individualism, many of us are individualists(me too) its not contradiction in terms to be individualist and communist altogether, its just 2 sides of one coin: we strive for a just society where everyone gets what he ACTUALLY earns, not more, not less, and to create this type of order, where the needs of everyone are met BY LABOR, where we all take decisions for our communities and lives, and we create our own destiny, where we work for the benefit of the individuals, as well as the whole community. And, yes, we reject the idea of “self ownership” not because we want to control your life, but because you are not an object, you are a living being, and living beings can not be owned – it was called slavery. And yes, you can not own yourself. To own yourself means that you are an object and you are separate from “yourself” – it seems not logical, isnt it?This doesent imply that you can not do with your body as you wish – you can make suicide if you want, ok?And you can make decisions for yourself. The only things that you can not do in ancom society is to own a largescale means of production(fabrics, etc.) , to exploit other people, or to rule them! Does this make sense to you?