Contract(ual) Propertarianism (CP)

One idea 'roaming' in my head is that of contract propertariansim. It is an idea of what physical property really is (apart from a cloud of molecules) and how to manage it. There are a few points around which CP revolves:

1. All property is common property in reality:

Technically true, philosophically false. When you think about it, one individual and his family/supporters cannot fight off billions of people, if they were to try and take his/her property. This is not an argument for democracy, it is reality. The bigger group has a better chance of subduing the smaller one. Therefore, all property really belongs to all of humanity.

2. A person is entitled to own that which he and the people around him have agreed to:

From point #1, we can conclude that all 'private' property is really socialist property, where the property is 'created' by a mutual agreement between individuals. Each individual views the ownership of his property and the property claims of others as beneficial to him, hence why the property claims become legitimate. They would be illegitimate otherwise. Property is now mutually beneficial and agreed upon, meaning everyone benefits. The socialist part of this is that the property claim is collectively 'judged'.

3. All property agreements are contracts; mainly social ones:

If property is created by mutual consent between individuals, then this means it is nothing more and nothing less than a contract. Maybe not a physical one, but a contract nonetheless. In an anarchist society, a contract must be purely voluntary. That means no compulsion to enter, no force to maintain, you can always opt out and those who are not in the contract are not affected by it. As soon as a contract is involuntary, it is null and void. Same goes for property contracts.

In a property contract, all individuals who view the property claim as mutually beneficial and legitimate have 'signed' the contract and agreed to stay off said property. However, those who have not 'signed' the contract are not in any way obligated to follow it, or consider the claim legitimate. They have not agreed to the terms of the contract and the property is still available to them. This is not how typical propertarianism has been defined, where a property claim is universally legitimate if the proprietor has acquired the property in a 'legitimate' way. But legitimacy is in the eye of the judge, or in this case, the individuals involved in the claim. I believe this is better than the judge being some macho philosophers, who say this and that is legitimate because of some mystical link between an ego and a cloud of molecules a distance away.

4. Contract(ual) propertarianism fits liberty better than most other types of propertarianism:

First reason, unlike most other forms of propertarianism, CP is not based on arbitrary philosophical and/or rhetorical claims. CP is based on an agreement beween individuals at the time of or after the property claim; not on a prescriptive judgement of what is legitimate by a few philosophers before the claim.

Second reason, CP does not invovle the threat of coercion or violence. Since CP is based on a voluntary agreement, from which all parties see benefit, there is no (need for) any coercion or violence. There is not even need for violation consequences: why would anyone violate a contract, which they signed, seeing benefit from folowing the guidelines of that contract? Unless it some naive Stalinist who wants to toy with people, agree to stay off their pasture land, and then trample on it to make them angry for his amusement, I don't see a reason for one to violate a contract like this one.

The only other type of propertarianism I would say is compatible with liberty would be egoist propertarianism. Although rather vulgar and violent, it was actually the foundation for contractual propertarianism, which is merely EP without violence, secrecy and disorder.

The Tragedy of the Commons

The sacred religion of "The Tragedy of the Commons" states that any commonly owned piece of pasture land will be overused, because each individual has the incentive to maximize profit and will feed as many cattle as he can. With a large population, the piece of land will be overgrazed.

If you look carefully, you might notice that this argument seems familiar. It will seem to you that the logic in this argument is similar to the logic of another argument. Anarchists and libertarians should find it even more familiar. Well it sounds familiar, because this argument uses an example, the other is more direct. The tragedy of the commons is the same argument as the anti-anarchist classic: "If maximum freedom and power equality are given to the people, then each individual will use violence against others when he/she sees fit and thus it results in chaos." Add "in the commons", right after "power equality"; replace "use violence" with "abuse"; "against others" with "common land" and "chaos" with "tragedy". Now see where the argument comes from!

Hasn't that argument been refuted again and again? You'd think that by now the terms mutual aid, co-operation, self-interest, markets, liberty, solidarity, ethics, non-aggression and management would have become boring to statists. However, you'd be wrong; the statists obvioously like being refuted, but they can't find new ways to challenge us, so they just use the old classics. They also say "you know, let's not bore the anarchists... How about we change some words?"

The tragedy of the commons is not just an argument against the commons and socialism, it is also an argument against liberty, anarchism and haudauctorism. It can even be considered an argument against free markets: "If the markets were truly free, then people would abuse them". Sounds familiar doesn't it? This is why anarchists, market or otherwise, should take some time to refute the tragedy of the commons; not solve it, but prove that there is no tragedy!

Private Property Statism

All these capitalists are whining about how their property rights are legitimate and are there for a good reason. I disagree with such a statement. The first property rights were established so that one person can have command over others just because they were in the area he claimed. That is collectivism, and this is another reason why I believe capitalism is standing on a collectivist base. They put forward a completely strawmanned and misunderstood notion of the commons, and claim that the commons create a tragedy. What the capitalists are really criticizing is state-owned property and I agree with them on that. All property owned by the state rots away. Secret services are the only services that the state can be efficient at.

When the state owns property and lets people use it, they project legitimacy onto the state; the people believe that the state will take care of everything and they abuse the resources. This does not happen and has never happened with true common ownership of the means of production. In the real commons, nobody has a claim over land. The people know that no one is managing the land. This will always result in a democratic or some other form of consensus decision-making progress, which will protect the resources from abuse.

The capitalists also claim that if I violate their rights of property then I forfeit all of my rights and they can do whatever they wish with me. So long as they cannot use me for their own selfish ends, I cannot walk on their claimed territory. The only way a capitalist can exclude people from property, and I do mean the only way, is if the capitalist uses a police force. Any police force, whether from the state or from the private sector is undoubtedly a statist organization. That police has a legitimate monopoly on the use of force over me, and if I attempt to defend myself, I do not have the right to, because I have 'forfeited' that right.
My response to this is that all rights are inalienable and at maximum you only forfeit the rights which you violate. If I violate your property rights then I forfeit only my property rights, and since I do not believe in property rights, I have no issue with that.
To get back on topic, that police now become a state. It is therefore concluded that private ownership of land can only be enforced in a statist manner, and is therefore incompatible with any form of anarchism, individualist and collectivist.

This does not mean that I am against workers owning the product of their labor or private ownership of houses. I see houses as objects to be owned and possessed using the principles in the manifesto. But I believe land and most means of production should always be held in common, regardless of how much labor was put forth to build them or improve them.