Life Without Government: Property

Life Without Government

By

Mitchell Gray


Property

What is it and How is it Acquired?

Property is extremely important to any society, but even more so in a world without government. Property rights and ownership are so essential to a free world that without them we have no rights at all. Earlier we defined property as anything that you have legitimately acquired either through homesteading or via exchange or as a gift. And with ownership comes the right to decide how that property ought to be used. In fact, as we will discuss later, it is only through ownership of private property and a proper understanding of that concept that you have any rights at all.

It is good to note that property ownership begins with yourself, your body, your mind and your life. It is from this ownership of yourself, which begins at birth, that you acquire all other rights. Your right to speak freely, your right to privacy, your right to bear arms for defense, your right to be secure in all your papers and effects – all of those rights stem from the one eternal right that all men have which is your right to own and control property. Property means much more than just land or a house. Property is everything you can physically own. Every breath of air that enters your lungs is your property until you exhale it. Every drop of water you drink is your property until you expel it. It is essential, then, to understand the proper meaning of property if we ever going to understand how a free market world unencumbered by the State can ever function.

One of the rights you inherit when you acquire a piece of property (including your own body and life) is the absolute right to do with it as you please, provided you do not violate the rights and property of another person (remember the non-aggression principle?). As owner of that property you can do anything you want with it. If you own a chair you may sit on it, stand on it, hang it from a tree or burn it for firewood. No one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with that chair. If they did they would be violating your absolute right to ownership in that chair, thus they are violating your property rights. The only caveat to all of this is that you can only do what you want with your property on your property. Here is an example to help clarify.

Let us assume that Bill is going over to Johns house for dinner bringing with him a six pack of beer. When he arrives John sees that Bill has a six pack of beer with him. Being a recovering alcoholic John request that Bill leave the beer in his car so as to not be tempted by it. Bill could protest that since he is the owner of that six pack he has the right to do with it as he pleases but he would be wrong in this situation. Bill, as owner of that six pack, does have the right to do with it as he pleases, but only on his property. Bill can drink that six pack to his hearts content in his own property but he is no longer on his own property. He is now on Johns property and John has requested that Bill leave the six pack in his car. The right to use your property in any manner you see fit extends only to the boundaries of your own property. Once you are on someone else’s property your property rights become secondary to theirs you becoming subject to their rules concerning how their property ought to be used. John has stated that in order to remain on his property Bill must leave the beer in the car. Bills property right in the beer has become secondary to Johns primary property right in the house since Bill is now a guest of Johns. If Bill refuses to obey the rules established by John for use of his property then Bill has become an aggressor against John and violated Johns property rights. John then has the right to ask Bill to leave. If Bill should refuse he further violates Johns rights, has now become a violent aggressor against John, giving John the right to use force to remove him from his property.

Another example would be a restaurant that requires their patrons to wear shirts. While you certainly have the right to not wear a shirt that right becomes secondary as you enter that restaurant. By entering the restaurant that requires the wearing of a shirt you are now subject to their rules. They have the right to refuse you entrance to their establishment if you refuse to abide by their guidelines.

Now, all of this doesn’t mean that when you enter another’s property they have the right to treat you anyway they want. If Bill goes over to Johns and John starts beating Bill about the head and face for no reason then John has become an aggressor against Bill, violating the NAP. However, if Bill understood that at any time during the night John would attack and beat him about the head and face, and that was one of Johns requirements for entrance to that property and still entered it, knowing full well that at some point he would be beaten John would not be considered an aggressor. Why? Because Bill knew that getting beaten was a requirement to come into Johns house and accepted that as a condition for entrance. Certainly all people have the right to not be beaten but by consenting to a beating in order to enter someone else’s property you have waved that right. Some might argue that that example is taking things a little too far but we must take things too far if we are to prove our point. If a principle does not stand true at the farthest extremes then it cannot be considered a valid argument. If you, as owner of your body, cannot voluntarily wave your “right” to not be beaten up then you really have no property rights at all. Since it is your body that you are allowing to be beaten, and since you alone have absolute control over what happens to it, then you most certainly have the right as owner of your body to allow someone else to beat you up. Of course you can always change your mind and leave, thus saving yourself the beating. In fact, if you had decided to leave because you changed your mind about the beating you have just withdrawn from the pre-agreed to contract and if John should proceed to beat you as you made you way out of the house then John would become an aggressor against you. He cannot argue that you were still in the house and thus subject to a beating because you were making a reasonable effort to leave the home.

Now that we’ve talked about what you can or cannot do with property how does one actually obtain property legitimately? As we have brought out beforehand there are two ways in which a person may obtain property legitimately. You can either obtain it by homesteading it or by transfer of ownership, which I call transfer of title. So how does homesteading work?

There are two types of property: owned and unowned. An example of an unowned property would be a deserted island which no man has ever stepped foot on. Any person who landed on that island could then begin the homesteading process. You can only homestead raw natural products that are untouched by human hands or have been totally and completely abandoned and are now in an unowned state. To homestead something you must mix your labor with it. In other words it must become transformed from unused property to used property. Say Bill lands on that island and decides he likes the place and wants to make it his new home. He stakes of an area for a little garden, cuts down a few trees to build a house and makes other improvements. Let’s assume in all he transforms 10 acres of land from unused to used land. Bill has now homesteaded those 10 acres of land and now has a legitimate claim to them. They have moved from being unowned property to owned property. Can Bill legitimately claim ownership of the entire island? He could try but it wouldn’t stick. If John were to land on the opposite side of the island and transform 10 acres of land on that side of the farm then he would become the legitimate owner of that property. The reason is that you can only legitimately claim ownership of that which you have transformed. If you are walking down the street and find a nice looking rock and pick it up you have “mixed your labor with the land” so to speak and can claim that rock as your own. But you cannot claim ALL of the rocks in the entire world as your own. You have transformed that single rock by picking it up, mixing your labor with it, moving it from unowned to owned property. But you cannot claim every rock that should be on the surface of the earth simply because you picked up one small stone. The rest of the island that is not being used by either Bill or John would be unowned land still in its natural unused state. Now, John could lay claim to larger portions of the island by utilizing more land for his own use. This is the principle of homesteading in a nutshell.

The other way to acquire property is by transfer of title. This can occur in one of two ways. Either the title can be transferred via exchange or as a gift. You cannot give away things that are unowned meaning Bill cannot give Sally any portion of that island which he has not legitimately homesteaded. Her title to that property would be illegitimate, unless of course she mixes her labor with the land and homesteads it for herself. If you are the legitimate owner of property it is totally within your right to simply give it away. Acquiring property by means of exchange would be either in direct exchange, such as barter (trading two bulls for five milk cows) or through indirect exchange. Indirect exchange is the most common method of exchange. You have five acres of land for sale and want $20,000 for them. So I pay you $20,000 for that land and all rights to it. That is indirect exchange.

When transferring title to property it is possible to transfer a conditional title. Say John sells Bill 100 acres of land but with the condition that he is only buying the surface property, not the minerals. If Bill accepts those terms then Bill will obtain a conditional title to that property. Bill retains all rights to the surface of the land but has no claim over the minerals that may be beneath it. Property can also be divided and owned by several people. Bill, Dave, John, and Sam can all have a claim in that same 100 acres of land according to their pre-agreed to terms each owning a share in that property.

If you were paying attention you see that everything relies on contractual agreements and pre-agreed to terms and conditions. An example of a contractual agreement would be the employer-employee scenario. If we used the homesteading principle we might conclude that the employee building widgets for ABC Widget Company actually owns the widgets he produces but that would not be true. The reason is because ABC Widget Company has all of the raw material necessary to build the widgets. The employee has made a contractual agreement with the employer to build as many widgets as possible for the sum of X amount of dollars per hour, week, year or whatever the agreement would be. The employer has made an agreement with the employee that it if the employee produces as many widgets as possible he will paid X amount of dollars for his time and labor. The employee has agreed to contract their time and labor (their property) for the wages (the employers property) the employer is willing to pay, but under the stipulation that all widgets produced do not belong to them but to their employer. If the employer does not pay the employee then the employee is free to withdraw from the contract, quit the job and find a new employer. If the employee does not produce a sufficient number of widgets or steals widgets from the employer then the employer has the right to withdraw from the contract and fire the employee.