Skip to main content


I might be wrong here... warn me if I am.

Striding eager and brave Roderick Long pleads with the world to...

Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms – not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor –not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned

I have some reservations about the above interpretation of the homestead principle. Since there won't be a government to turn to, people will sign up to DRO's / Arbiters / Parishes to resolve these kinds of disputes.

The notion that a community are capable of sharing a path to a lake is fine. Even the motivation given, that it is their thoroughfare to their food supply, is fine. I can see the people getting along just fine, until the day when they don't.

This bothers me. Is it just me, or does it make more sense for the path to be reckoned the property of some organisation set up by the locals rather than the property of the community itself. That community is little more than a metaphysical construct in its occupants' minds, let us remember.

A forest only becomes a forest when we learn that f-word; otherwise we're looking at a lot of separate trees. And the homesteading that is taking place is so diffuse it's not really useful to assign it to everyone that's passing along.

What's the quota on number of journeys? Is going from village to water empty-handed and then from water to village with a fresh catch the criterion to join in this glorious exercise of communal conjugation?

It seems wishy-washy and unfair on the anarchic future of our race for an ancap like Long to extend homesteading rights to assemblages of individuals. Sure, they'll probably get on fine and most likely never bicker about the path, but they do not all magically own it unless they can show a DRO that future disputes can be clearly resolved.

Certainly they won't be able to get any flood or wind-damage insurance from a DRO without declaring one singular owner of the path, or apportioning it into stretches, one for each member of the community. Even typing that latter suggestion made me cringe.

So Matt concludes that homesteading rights are to be enjoyed by the individual only. That individual can sell or give away what they have homesteaded, but that is a matter of economics, not philosophy. Homesteading is a vitalising part of the Libertarian belief in the ascendency of Liberty. Let's be sure to recognise that in a society without government clear contracts and ownership will be more, not less important than now.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; I wanna take you hiiigher!

Popular posts from this blog

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Why I Am Not a Historical Materialist

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.
At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.
Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.


Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.