Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

If you mix your time and labour with something that nobody owns you gain ownership of it. This process starts in the womb and in the first couple of years after birth as you homestead your body while learning to move, speak, think and so act*1.

Later on in life, one can homestead anything that isn't owned. Sadly this does not usually include squatting, as whatever edifice is being squatted usually has an owner. If it is owned, you are trespassing.

Your right to property is the exclusive right to use whatever the thing is that is your property; whether your house, clothes, furniture, computer. This right can be argued to exist because we have free will, desires, and a world that we act in, both alone and in concert with others. You smash all that together and people need clear lines to tell who gets to use what and where, and what land they can claim.

Humans don't like conflict and violence because it introduces them to the risk of harm. They'd much rather agree on a way to get along, even if many individual desires will be frustrated by this, at least the frustrated individuals will still be alive.

So homesteading is how property justifiably comes into being. But Matt, that's not what actually happened! Well, no. That's because these brigands called Kings took the land for themselves and then parcelled it out to their lieutenants. The more useful the lieutenant, the more land he got.

Does this sound like an indictment of the private sector / civil society? Surely people in a free society would just contract with each other for more things than is currently the case. And that way the scourge of socialisation would be held at bay forever.

So today we've established that homesteading starts in the womb and so is a first principle of moral living. We've also established that moral living is more expedient than everybody immediately trying to steal from everybody else, as nobody wants to be the one that gets killed in the act.

People who fear Libertarianism because - according to them - it could cause chaos should remember that we all fear chaos, which is exactly why it won't happen when government is no more.

*1 - Remember that action here means to do things in the external world to satisfy needs in the immediate or distant future, like getting an education, or going to the bathroom. Both of those qualify since you could in theory just soil yourself in front of everyone. ANYWAY!

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt proves conclusively that he is not a salmon.

EDIT; Correction to opening sentence; "time and labour" replaces "time, labour or money" since you can't pay an owner for something that is unowned. Poor absurd Matthew.


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …