Tim’s speech from Porcfest 2018 expands on the ideas he presented in his previous speech, and presents a more cohesive framework for addressing issues related to Public Space within libertarian theory. He challenges some libertarian orthodoxy, in particular Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s conception of public space as simply an extension of private property.
Also: Helicopters 🚁🚁🚁
Use hashtag #ana019 to reference this episode in a tweet, post, or comment.
View full show notes at https://anarchitecturepodcast.com/ana019.
Download Slideshow as PDF
Speech Notes
Note: YouTube with slideshow coming soon.
PorcFest XV | June 21, 2018
“Property is theft; Property is freedom: these two propositions stand side by side…
and each is shown to be true” – Pierre-Joseph ProudhonFrom Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, ed. Stewart Edwards, Macmillan 1969. p.133
Public Space Is Where Freedom Happens
- Public Space: Space that is accessible to non-owners without invitation, with reasonable restrictions
- Not always “public property.” Government owned and privately owned
- Many types of public space – Open Space, Buildings, Pathways
- Degrees of access with permissions
- Restrictions on entry and occupancy – Fees, hours, use, behavior
- Many private facilities have public space components (i.e. Lobbies)
- Expectation of entry (if not occupancy) on most properties
- Freedom of Movement
- Access – enter and exit, with reasonable restrictions (fees for wear and tear, hours of use, etc.)
- Occupancy
- Immigration
- Freedom of Association
- Meet with others
- Assembly
- Protest
- Special Events – Block party, parade, bike race
- Freedom of Exchange
- Farmers’ Market
- Boot Sale
- Food Trucks
- Sidewalk Entrepreneurship
- Peer to peer exchange
- Satoshi Squares
- Freedom to Bear Arms / Self-defense
- Transport weapons to private property
- Restrictions on self-defense in public spaces may expose the owners of public space to liability for not protecting
- occupants
- Four Tiers of Public Space
- Private Space – Invitation only / eviction rights.
- Maximum freedom for owner, minimal freedoms for public.
- Permissive Public Space – Public access and uses permitted by owner. Revocable defined freedoms.
- Protected Public Space – Public access and uses protected by easement, legal rights, etc. Irrevocable defined freedoms.
- Unowned Public Space – State of nature. Unlimited public access and uses. Maximum freedom for public, potential for conflict.
- We should fight for a free society in which public space exists.
- How do we divest public space from government ownership and control while preserving the freedom of public space?
Hoppe’s Private, Common, and Public Property
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization,” Libertarian Papers 3, 1 (2011)
- Property Ownership as Conflict Avoidance (paraphrased)
- Physical conflicts over scarce goods can be avoided if every good is exclusively controlled by some specified individual or group.
- To avoid all physical conflict from the beginning of mankind, all property must go back through a chain of conflict-free property title transfers to acts of original appropriation (homesteading).
- Hoppe’s Village
- Unowned / Unused Land (State of Nature)
- Unowned Land In Use
- Homesteaded Private Property
- Homesteaded Private Neighborhood
- Public Space Conflict (Scarcity)
- Solution 1 – Government-Owned “Public” Property
- Villagers form a government to own and manage the street.
- The Government:
- Restricts access by villagers and foreigners
- Sets rules and regulations
- Controls commercial activity and development on street
- Requires payment – user fees or taxes
- Does not allow exit from ownership
- Gains control over abutting private property (encirclement)
- Hoppe’s Village – Government-Owned “Public” Property
- Solution 2 – Homesteaded Private Property
- Individual or group “homesteads” the road by making repairs, granting them exclusive ownership
- The Owner:
- Restricts access by villagers and foreigners
- Sets rules and regulations
- Controls commercial activity and development on street
- Requires payment – user fees or taxes subscription
- Does not allow exit from joining ownership
- Gains control over abutting private property (encirclement)
- Hoppe’s Village – Homesteaded Private Property
- Solution 2.1 – Homesteaded Private Property with Easement
- Individual or group “homesteads” the road by making repairs, granting them exclusive ownership. Villagers are granted a right-of way easement.
- The Owner:
- Restricts access by villagers and foreigners
- Sets rules and regulations
- Controls commercial activity and development on street
- Requires payment by foreigners only – user fees or taxes subscription
- Does not allow exit from joining ownership
- Gains control over Restricts foreigners’ access to abutting private property (encirclement) (border control)
- Hoppe’s Village – Homesteaded Private Property / Easement
- Hoppe’s Easement Problem:
“For, by definition, as the first appropriator he cannot have run into any conflict with anyone in appropriating the good in question, as everyone else appeared on the scene only later.”
- Easement means:
- First appropriator did run into conflict, with previous users
- Use alone creates property rights, not just Lockean labor (improvements)
- Property rights can be granted to an unorganized collective (public), not just individual or organized group entity
- Property rights are divisible and can be allocated, not just exclusive control.
- Modes of Property Ownership
- (borrowed from Cynefin project management theory)
- Disorder – Unowned land
- Simple Ownership – Property rights allocated to one defined individual or group
- Complicated Ownership – Property rights allocated among multiple defined individuals or groups
- Complex Ownership – Property rights allocated among multiple defined and undefined individuals or groups (i.e. the public)
- Chaotic Ownership – Unpredictable allocation of property rights among multiple defined and undefined individuals or groups
- Hoppe’s Village – Homesteaded Private Property
- Hoppe’s Village – Homesteaded Private Property / Easement
- Hoppe’s Village – Protected Public Space
We Need to Talk About Helicopters
“In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property,
no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. …no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism.
There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.” – Hans Herman HoppeDemocracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (Transaction: 2001) p. 218
- A covenant among proprietor and community tenants
- What people get wrong about Hoppe
- “Physical Removal” means eviction from private property (Tier 1 Private Space) by its owner. That’s it. No helicopters, folks.
- Hoppe’s restrictions on speech are consented to within the covenant community and do not apply outside that community.
- What Hoppe gets right:
- In a covenant community, property owners can voluntarily agree to mutually restrict their freedoms, including speech about communism.
- Covenant violators could be evicted from the community, if allowed by the covenant terms.
- This is not aggression. The violator consented to removal.
- What Hoppe gets wrong:
- “Shh.. The libertarians are listening…”
- Covenant community restrictions only apply to property owners
- “Libertarian” covenant communities would not choose to restrict speech, movement, etc. even if such covenants were possible, which they aren’t
- Collectivized covenant communities are not “a libertarian social order.” They are communist.
- How do covenant communities make decisions? Democracy!
- No government-run nation, state, or village is a voluntary covenant community
- Private ownership of public space does not necessarily grant the owner right to admit or exclude others.
- In a libertarian society, there should be a network of protected public spaces from which you cannot be physically removed.
Divesting Government Property
- Why Divest Government Property?
- Basis for the state’s power and perceived legitimacy
- Private landownership maximizes freedom for landowner and minimizes conflict among permitted users
- Protected Public Space can maximize freedom for the public and minimize conflict through negotiated easements / rules
- Less justification for eminent domain
- Municipal police are not needed to secure private property
- Windfall capital endowment for the poor (and everyone else)
- Land Available for Homesteading (See table image below)
- Methods of Divestiture (See comparison table image below)
- To the Taxpayers (Hoppe)
- To the Workers
- To the Users
- To the Abutters
- To the Citizens
- To the Creditors
- To the Victims of History (Restitution)
- To the Highest Bidder (Auction)
- Lottery
- Vouchers
- Seizure in revolution
Opt-In Trusts
- A form of non-governmental public ownership
- Anyone can establish an ownership share at no cost
- Anyone can relinquish an ownership share
- Owners choose board members / management
- Owners have a stake in decision making
- Owners receive benefits of ownership (profit)
- Owners may be responsible for costs
- Owners establish access rights and rules
- Creating an Opt-in Trust
- Someone creates a Declaration of Trust (legal document)
- Defines criteria and process for opting-in
- Defines rights and responsibilities of owners and users
- Individuals opt-in to claim ownership shares
- New owners further evolve Trust policies
- Divesting Government Property to an Opt-in Trust
- Anarchitecture Podcast convinces governments to divest property
- Various Opt-in Trusts compete to persuade government to divest to them
- Multiple Opt-in Trusts may merge to be more viable
- Government transitions ownership of a specific property to a Trust
- Sources of Revenue
- Owner Fees (may be limited by Trust)
- User Fees (may be limited by easements)
- Abutter Impact Fees (curb cuts, utility work)
- Utility Fees (purchase easements, work permit fees)
- Land-Leases (mining, logging, operators, food trucks, events)
- Advertising (billboards, signboards, naming rights)
- Donations
- Raising Capital For Improvements
- Owner Fees (may be limited by Trust)
- Investment Shares – Separate from Opt-In Shares. Proportional to value of improvements
- Bonds – May be collateralized by improvements (not land value)
- Asset Sales – Limited by Trust and easements.
- Maintenance Costs
- Paid by Trust
- Wear and tear
- Security
- Insurance
- Claim Damages
- Management / Administrative
- Profits
- Savings for future improvements
- Discounts to users
- Dividends to Opt-In Shares. Each additional share dilutes previous shares.
- Dividends to Investment Shares. Proportional to value of improvements.
Conclusion
- Public space is where freedom happens
- 4 Tiers – Private, Permissive, Protected, Unowned
- Modes of Ownership – Disorder, Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic
- A libertarian society should have a network of protected public spaces connecting sovereign private properties
- Government property should be divested to public forms of ownership with protections for established freedoms
- Opt-In Trusts may be the best method of divestiture
Discussion
- Lancaster or Lebanon?
- Tim was offered a helicopter ride
- Helicopter memes – taken too seriously?
- Covenant Communities
- Red Meat and Sacred Cows
- Protected Public Space vs. Hoppean border controls
- A more nuanced view – Public Space as a separate category of analysis
- “Governing the Commons” – Elinor Ostrom
- Separable rights to uses of public space
- Aggression defined as “Interference with established use”
- Homesteading uses vs. homesteading land
- Private public spaces could still exist (e.g. within private gated communities)
- Covenant Communities are overrated
- Hoppeville is a communist arrangement. That’s why the houses were red.
- Sovereign private property connected by a network of public space
- More on Opt-in Trusts
- Two objections
- Objection 1: Tragedy of the Commons
- Would a market process emerge to convert unsuccessful spaces to other uses?
- Road network maintained as a whole – big roads subsidize smaller feeder roads
- Objection 2: A trust could become a state
- Limited scope of Opt-in Trusts
- Opt-in implies Opt-out
- How does an Opt-in Trust enforce user fees?
- Common law adjudication
- Established penalties could inform appropriate user fees
- Fees are for service provided, not access per se
- Right of eviction for chronic deadbeats
- Get these ideas into the literature
- Bonus! The sounds of Porcfest (Raw Audio)
Links/Resources
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe
- “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization,” Libertarian Papers 3, 1 (2011). ONLINE AT: libertarianpapers.org.
- Democracy – The God That Failed
- The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration
- Tragedy of the Commons by Garret Hardin
- Governing the Commons (PDF) by Elinor Ostrom
- Our previous discussions:
Images
Share this:
Contact:
Contact UsTweet us: @anarchitecturep
Follow:
Website: https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anarchitecturepodcast/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anarchitecturep/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/anarchitecturep/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/AnarchitecturePodcst
Minds: https://www.minds.com/AnarchitecturePodcast
Subscribe:
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/anarchitecture/id1091252412YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWELM_zTl7tXLgT-rDKpSvg
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5pepyQfA25PBz6bzKzlynf?si=4UiD6cLkR6Wd26wJC4S4YQ
Podbean: https://anarchitecture.podbean.com/
Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=85082&refid=stpr
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/MIq2dOnSaTOP/
RSS (all posts): https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/feed/
RSS (Podcasts only): https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/feed/podcast/
Other Subscription Options
Support:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/anarchitecturepodcastBitbacker.io: https://bitbacker.io/user/anarchitecture/
Steemit: https://steemit.com/@anarchitecture
Donate Bitcoin (BTC): 32cPbM7j5rxRu1KUaXGtoxsqFQNWD696p7
RSS - Posts
Would Tim have the ability to enforce audio property rights during his speeches in this model of divestment? Maybe when some sort of cone of silence is invented…
Unfortunately the noise was established long before Tim homesteaded the stage!