Feb
2
“All property is theft”, said Proudhon. The very statement contradicts itself. An act could be called theft only if it involves taking the property of another which is legitimately owned. If no one legitimately owns any property, then how could it be termed as theft? If one could extort a grain of truth out of Proudhon’s statement, it would be that property was largely acquired through wrong means in the past. In India, in most cases land was forcefully appropriated by kings and distributed to Zamindars for the ease of tax collection. The Zamindars have no just claim to the land they acquired in this manner. There were cases of feudalism and slavery in the past. The crucial question is whether ownership claims to land possessed by the descendant of the looter have legitimacy or not. Should it be handed back to the descendants of the victims?
A few days back a reader of my blog posed this question to me: What if an industrialist who is creating wealth and providing jobs for millions is the descendant of a person who earned his wealth by loot? Should his right to property be respected?
In all my readings I haven’t found a libertarian thinker deals with this aspect morally other than Murray Rothbard. Ayn Rand is said to have provided a moral basis to Capitalism. But she doesn’t deal with a crucial aspect –The initial allocation of property rights. Capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private property rights and this sort of evasion is hard to digest.
The question I was asked is quite valid. Take the case of Dalits. Most of them are poor. In the past property was acquired through wrong means and it can’t be denied that it has played a role in the poverty they suffer from. The same could be said of blacks in the United States. Should anything be done about it? I am not a fan of Arundhati Roy and was a strong critic of her views, but I shall quote a few interesting lines from Roy’s An Ordinary Person’s Guide To Empire
“Even if it were true that there is a Hindu temple under every mosque in India, what was under the temple? Most likely an Adivasi Shrine. How deep shall we dig?”
This is the reason I am not at all sympathetic towards Anti-Reservation activists. It is also not at all evident that confiscating all property and distributing would cure the problem of poverty. It would only lead to chaos and poverty for all.
Let me quote some libertarian theorists in this issue. Rothbard writes in “Egalitarianism-As A Revolt Against Nature” that “It is not enough to call simply for defense of the “rights of private property”; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be private” must now be defended by Libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.”
Or of the man who might be the current possessor by purchasing the land from Henry Jones X? If Smith and his descendants are lost to antiquity, then title to the land properly and legitimately belongs to the current Jones (or the man who has purchased it from him), direct application of our theory of property titles.” “Suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers. Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of aggression against the true owners-the true possessors–of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressive against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title. In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly.
Ludwig Von Mises’ ideas are entirely opposite in this regard. He writes in “Economic Freedom And Interventionism :“Under the conditions of the capitalistic market society this program of land reform no longer makes any sense. In the market economy the consumers daily decide anew who should own the material factors of production and how much anybody should own. By their buying or abstention from buying the consumers allot control of the material factors of production to those who know how to use them in the best and cheapest way for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Ownership of land means in the market economy the sovereignty of the consumers. The owners are mandatory of the consumers as it were, bound to employ their property as if it were entrusted to them by the people. When they fail in this regard, they suffer losses. Then they are forced to improve their management or, finally, they go bankrupt. Others who know better how to serve the consumers replace them.”
I would have to state that I am totally in agreement with the views of Rothbard in this issue. Property appropriated wrongfully should be given back to the victims of his descendants wherever they can be traced.
No Responses to “Theft-The Origin of Property?”
Leave a Reply
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 pmWhat is right to property? Is it some kind of birth right for an object, thing, land, or any other sort of property? A right to own that property in question?
No It is not so. There cannot be any birth right to any property. What right to property signifies is the consequence of ONE and ONLY fundamental right, that is the right to life, the right to property signifies the right of a man to act freely, to earn or produce any property he wishes by his free endeavors.
Right to property is not a Guarantee of a man that he will get/earn any property, it is a guarantee that if he earns it, he will own it, right to property is right to earn, to keep, to use to enjoy and to dispose of material values.
If a person earns a property, he has right to offer it to any other person, say his son, but it’s not the right of son to forcibly demand his share in his parents property. He may get it he cannot demand it, his parent may decide to dispose his earned property to someone else not in any relation too.
Now your illogical differences with anti-reservationists, I am anti-reservationist. Tell me why should there be any sort of reservation?
Who is the landlord here after 60 years of independence?
Till how long you want to victimize others who according to you are not Dalits?
How do you think a person of a Dalit family is different from me?
Why should he be provided any sort of reservation, Reservation in education, jobs and employment? What is the logic?
To define that logic you first need to define the difference between Him and me in free India, where neither I had any landlord in my family, nor had he. The real property owner in India is GOVERNMENT.
Now about your question, what if a person who is providing jobs to millions now, is a person whose ancestors stole someone’s property.
See, reservation is not needed for that, what is needed is Evidence. if you think someone stole some property say 500 years ago from a person’s biological ancestors, than it was a crime, you need to accuse the suspect first, than you need to prove that there really was a crime of theft.
Once you prove it, you will have to make an agreeable situation with the person whose ancestors stole something from the victim’s ancestors to return back the exact amount of property in that time period plus the agreeable fine. You may enforce the exact amount of property, but you cannot enforce the fine, the person has a right to go against your imposed fine and argue against it any other third party arbitrator court.
First of all, one cannot demand for punishment for a person for the crimes of someone else, especially when that someone else was living 500 years ago. Now let us assume a person stole something 500 years ago. From that stolen property, he produced more, and overall he transferred to someone else, he further produced more and again a transfer and again further production and again a transfer..
If you think that, the current many-multifold times increased property should be confiscated, then actually you are punishing whole lot of individuals who innocently (without any crime) worked and processed their freedom to act to own and keep increasing a property. There is no logic in looting a man Now just because his ancestors committed a crime 500 years ago.
Will you demand stone-killing of a kid because his father was a rapist and murderer?
Now forget it, there is no possible way to prove that someone stole something from someone else 500 years ago. There are more than enough probabilities that the rich man and his ancestors never really stole anything from anybody but just won things in proper competitions justified by the then situations.
Still, government confiscated all private property from all landlords after 1947 and redistributed it, it sounded logical that time too.
Now government is the owner not the users of that property. They have a limited right to act on those land, and from that limited right to act, if they earn enough they may make their own property too.
I agree the current users should be made property owners. First of all I should be made owner of my HOUSE which government provides me on lease of 99 years. I cannot turn my house to a factory or mill without government permission, because basically there is no right of property in India.
By that, I mean there is no right to act freely, I cannot act to start a factory on a piece of land because although it is a registered home on my name I earned the LIMITED use of a piece of land for a LIMITED period, for LIMITED usage regulated by GOVERNMENT, the real owner of all property in India is government and no one else. It is not only a danger for Nandigram villagers.
Just because of a falsified general talk that some people abused/exploited some other people in ancient past, hence some people now should be provided reservations does not make it right.
P.S Ayn rand explained property rights most logically and morally.
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pmDudette,
You have totally misunderstood me.I am not a pro-reservationist.There should be no reservations.But,it is stupid to stand against reservation,yet demand public funded education.That’s the problem I have with the Anti-Reservation guys. My blog wasn’t a call for reservations.Ayn rand had written something about property rights,but she hadn’t dealt with issues like property theft,which would make her defence complete.You said in your comment that if I person got from his descendants the wealth they stealed from someone else.That’s exactly what I had said and what Rothbard had said.What’s your contention? I agree to whatever you had said in your comment.Why do we have to fight when there is no difference of opinion?
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pmMy view on Reservations is well expressed in this post.I think renegade_division too agrees to it completely.
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/education/hypocrisy-of-anti-reservation-activists.html
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pmand who is renegade division?
Why do you need him to agree with you or support you?
get it right here, your logic against anti-reservationists, i challenge you. if you have any agreeable logic, it will benefit us both, if you don’t have any agreeable logic, than also it will benefit us both
And forget that old article, consider it lost.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 pmI am not misunderstanding you.
Not a single anti-reservationist at present belong to ANY LANDLORD.
There is no property right in india.
The simple logic against reservation is there is no proof that the ancestors of today’s general caste belonging Individual, looted or harassed any “So-Called” Dalit’s ancestors in any period of time. if government accuses general caste collectiviely, it is useless and WRONG.
let the government pinpoint every person who lived 500 years ago or 100 years ago and who was a landlord, who abused, exploited those who were not landlords, landlord means anyone who owns any sort of property, be it house or field.
Once government pinpoints, let the government prove that seriously there was any exploitation, once it proves, then sure government can demand some relief for the current family of that ancestor of Dalit, who was exploited.
When you are talking of MORALS, lets get it done on morals.
What is your moral to oppose anti-reservationist of CURRENT TIME.
Why should there be any reservation.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 pmOne more thing, I am suggeting you, stop beating the offbeat bushes of illogical past, consider your current situation and apply your vast knowledge for current situations, current India.
You will get many supporters if you want to support reservations.
There is no lack of lazy looters in India.
deadmanoncampus Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 pmLook,
I truly have no idea why you have problems with this post.I was saying just the same thing you said in the comment. Let the aggressors be traced and property be given back to the victims. My article was not a call for reservations or forceful redistribution of the poverty. I am against Anti-Reservationists because they are not Capitalists.If there are Anti-Reservationists who want to do away with Government funded education I would support them.
As I wrote : “If you are opposing reservations for the right reasons, go for it. I am with you. No double standards or undefined ‘values’ and ‘principles’. No compromise on ‘equality’, ‘efficiency’ and ’social justice’. No ‘free quality primary education’. No ‘public funded quality higher education’ for the meritorious or reservations for the ‘real poor’.”
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pmDeadman on campus,
I am sorry if my comments made you feel that I have problem with your post.
I have no problem, you can post anything here. in fact today i invited a staunch environmentalist to post his ideas here too. About the suggestion i made, well I have a right to suggest things, you have a right either to accept or deny the suggestions.
But when you have made a post, You are expected to defend it.
You have blamed anti-reservationists, I am anti-reservationist.
Either an Indian can be pro-reservationist, or Anti-reservationist, he cannot be neutral because it is a policy which is forcibly legalized on every indian.
So if you are NOT anti-reservationists, you are pro-reservationists, so why you are?
If you are not pro-reservationist, and you actually are Anti-reservationists, why did not you mentioned it properly that although you are Anti-reservationist, you do not agree with certain points (mentioning those specific points).
Plus since you were not able to understand the MORALITY of Rand’s idea of Right to property, how can you state that Only Rothbard provided it?
Try to oppose the morality of Rand’s idea of right to property here now, you opened it up.
And ohh yep, if you want to say that Rand did not write about the hypothetical question you put up in a specific manner, than I agree she did not.
It was not necessary. Any sane person can deduce the logic you are saying Rothbard presented after understanding the basic premise of property rights presented by Ayn Rand.
There’s no problem in it.
Just here you are saying that What i commented was simply the same you posted in your aticle. But I never read Rothbard and his ideas about it. I read Ayn Rand and applied my Mind to what i learn and that is how I made my comment. if it really is similar to your post, than it means what Rothbard presented was easily derivable by understanding Ayn Rand’s Moral explanation of Property Rights.
Giuseppe Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 6:01 amProudhon was an economist ravaging for state-owned production and socialization, he was working in an era where Karl Marx’s ideas of capital distribution and the destiny of capitalism were not totally unaccepted as they are today. Given today’s knowledge, it seems absolutely ridiculous to even refer to Proudhon’s speakings, because they existed at a different time and culture.
That said, the argument that property is theft stems from a moral argument that there’s simply no inalienable reason that you can ‘own’ things, and a state will protect your ‘ownership’ of them. Economically, it’s entirely unviable to run a society with no property – people protect, work, and interact with their own property in a way that they don’t care about ‘everyones’ or society’s property. Even those who feel they’re socially respectable members of society can be demonstrated to protect their own property at a degree much higher than that of ‘society’s’ property, such as the property of a government or school.
That, and the Tragedy of the Commons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ) is the biggest single issue with non-private property rights theories.