How work creates property

But not in the way libertarians think

We can understand the nature of property because there is an antecedent in the natural world: territory. Living things from ants to jungle cats all carve out territory or domain, most importantly this is a matter of peer exclusion, not total control.

This appears to be why migratory birds are not bound by immigration laws, but humans are subject to those laws.

The nature of territory is that it requires active defense, but because of geometry and the nature of path flows, defense costs are minimized. Territory tends to be established within a geometrically contained unit. The importance of flow paths is that living things follow repetitive routes, even animals who have never been someplace before. So by defending a domain once, the paths of others then flow around it and not through it.

All this takes work, everything from building fences to contesting with trespassers. The distinction between territory and property in my view, is that property is a matter of common social recognition.

There is an element of mutual consent with property, because I recognize your property, you will recognize mine. And in the real world we see pooling of resources in order achieve this.

The libertarian view is typically to try to frame all rights as property rights, which I think is caused by some of them thinking of the world as a jungle, rather than a society. Most of our rights are about our place within a social hierarchy or community, and the acceptance or consent of the community. We accept obligations within a community, and in turn are recognized with certain privileges or benefits.

Many libertarians frame property rights as a “just dessert” of self interested work. If you do work to build or create something, you should then own in. There is nothing in particular wrong with this ethic, but I would argue that it is not automatic or free.

To build a society where people mutually respect each others interests and freedoms, historically at least, has required much more than simply a cultural expectation. Societies have established courts and governments to adjudicate what is social or anti-social behavior, as well as systems of political representation to manage these institutions.

Such institutions have historically not been controlled through property rights, but through representation managed by political processes. Still, in capitalist countries these institutions don’t direct productive activities, but rather establish boundaries and adjudicate disputes.

One might consider, and I do, for capitalism to be a form of socialism, wherein the public collectively works to define, recognize and protect property rights. If you are in favor of capitalism, which I am, then I at least view that as supporting socialism for some concerns.

At the same time, I see incredible benefit for having public institutions create and enforce rules, rather than trying to directly undertake the task of production.

The way I see it is like the government is a referee in a sporting match. If the referee were also a player, then there would either be a conflict of interest, or chilling effects where they didn’t put forth their full effort.

Regardless, if we are only relying on the referees to get players to behave in a socially conscious manner, and not creating a cultural expectation of fair play and good manners as well, then I don’t think that works very well.

Many people seem to want capitalism to work like a hockey match, where there are fights and conflict, and the “enforcers” themselves are players. Nothing against hockey, but I don’t think that makes sense for all situations.

But going back to our description of property as arising from the “just desserts” of labor. Within a society that has common recognition of property rights, work you do in your own self interest, may not be sufficient to create property rights.

This is especially the case when your claim of property is in contention or conflict with someone else’s efforts to work or perform labor for their benefit.

Just because you build a fence around something, doesn’t mean you should automatically get to own it. That would make capitalism like a game of “slither dot io”.

The basis for establishing and maintaining a private property claim, requires not only that you perform labor for your own interests, and mutual respect of those claims, but also that you must perform labor or services for the public interest.

Because the public reduces the costs of defense of property or territory, by socializing those costs through public institutions, property owners are required to contribute to support those efforts, and this is the function of taxation within a system of private property.

Moreover, your claim to property, as the just desserts of labor, should not be able to fundamentally interfere with or inhibit someone else’s opportunity to work or perform labor. This is what unemployment amounts to. If all property is already claimed, and none of those incumbent owners are willing to hire someone without property, then there is no legal way for that person to even have the opportunity to work.

A public service job, is just a way for people without property to earn tax credits, and way for those who do have property to then in turn earn those tax credits to keep their private property claims. There is no reason why we cannot make this universal with a job guarantee.