Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Industrialization of Agriculture

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Rad, Again let me make the point that people did not migrate because of enclosures, but because they were thrown off land owned by the landlords. Essentially
    Message 1 of 67 , Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Rad,

       

      Again let me make the point that people did not “migrate” because of enclosures, but because they were thrown off land owned by the landlords.

       

      Essentially the people who owned the land owned the people. When the landlord found more profit in sheep they evicted the population that had become a nuisance. Certainly by Rothbardian standards, the landlords had every right to kick the people out of the parish.

       

      So they were “attracted to the cities” – or so goes the myth.

       

      They had nowhere else to go and fortunately the “satanic mills” were awaiting them.

       

      Harry

       

      **********************************

      Henry George School of Social Science

      of Los Angeles.

      Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

      818 352-4141

      **********************************

       

      From: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rad Geek
      Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:56 PM
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Industrialization of Agriculture

      Jeff Olson wrote:

      > It seems clear, Charles, by your own description below that there were
      > significant differences between the US and the British/European
      > experience with respect to "peasants" and "enclosure."
      Essentially, the
      > US system you've chronicled below has to do with human slavery,
      > not land-allocations per se. Certainly, if you're a slave, you lack
      > rights to all kinds of things, including land.

      Jeff,

      There certainly were differences between American chattel slavery, and
      feudal serfdom in Europe. But the differences that there were do not
      undermine the point that I was making. In both cases there is a large
      class of people who had formerly made their living at farming, and who
      migrated en masse from the country into the cities largely because they
      were turned out of land that rightfully belonged to them and which they
      had worked for years. In the case of American slaves, this happened not
      via an "enclosure" (since they never were bound to the land, there was
      nothing to enclose), but rather via the State's continued backing of the
      former slave-drivers' fraudulent property claims to their landed
      estates. Since planters could no longer extract profits through
      slave-driving, this led over time to many former black farmers being
      turned out of their own land, through both economic and legal processes.
      Had their rightful ownership of the land (free and clear) been
      recognized, neither the economic nor the legal processes could have
      taken place.

      > I think your essay misses the central question that Dan and others have
      > raised -- namely, is there something inherently rights-depriving in the
      > act of enclosure,

      Yes, of course there is, if by "enclosure" you mean the sort of thing
      that happened in England under the Enclosure Acts. Was there any
      question as to that?

      > and can we deduce rights-violation merely by dramatic
      > geographic shifts in population,

      No, of course not, but nobody claimed that every large-scale migration
      is necessarily the result of coercion. The claim was merely that this
      has commonly been the case in actual historical fact, and in both
      America and England part of it was directly related to the expulsion of
      agricultural laborers from land that they rightfully owned and could
      have used for their own subsistence, had it not been for the coercive
      expulsion.

      > such as occurred in the
      > non-slave-owning North?

      The North was not "non-slave-owning." The majority of colonial
      Manhattan, for example, was made up of large slave-cultivated
      plantations. What happened was simply that the Northern states enacted
      gradual abolition plans in the period around the American Revolution or
      shortly thereafter, while the Southern states did not. The freed blacks
      in the North were also deprived of any title to the land that they had
      worked, and in the North as well, they largely moved to free black
      communities in the large urban centers such as Boston and Philadelphia.

      There were other waves of migration to the Northern urban centers (from
      foreign countries, and from white rural communities) that weren't
      directly related to race slavery. But then, the claim I was asserting
      was merely that there was a (large) class of people in America whose
      position was analogous, from a libertarian standpoint, to that of
      English peasants during the Enclosure Movement. Not that everyone who
      ever moved to a Northern city was in that position.

      - -C

    • BGreen
      interestingly, in a geo-mutualist world it won t matter who owns the land or the capital - labor will always get it s just due... bg ... someone stole land --
      Message 67 of 67 , Jul 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        interestingly, in a geo-mutualist world it won't matter who owns the
        land or the capital - labor will always get it's just due...

        bg

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ust <dan_ust@...> wrote:
        >
        > Are you saying that under the system you propose, if you knew
        someone stole land -- from the community or from an individual -- that
        this person could keep it and just pay economic rent? For instance,
        imagine there are bunch of people living peacefully in a small valley
        and my armed gang happens along. We take the land and push the people
        off it. We now claim the title to it. Next, you come along and
        impose your system. Would you not push us off the land? Or we would
        be able to keep the land and merely pay economic rent?
        >
        > What about titles to capital goods and other things? Would these
        all be beyond dispute?
        >
        > If all of these things -- land, capital, or any other property --
        are beyond dispute in the system you propose, then I freely admit to
        having made an error here. However, I think I'd prefer the messier
        system of trying to right wrongs rather than what I believe you're
        proposing.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Dan
        >
        > Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
        > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*
        {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
        .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} If you were to
        read posts before you answered them, you would have seen that I have
        on a number of occasions said titles to ownership would not change.
        >
        > This is unlike the Rothbardian nonsense that would plow through
        tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of titles in order to
        nullify them.
        >
        > How can you come up with something that is exactly opposite to
        what has been said?
        >
        > Well, perhaps because you are not reading as much as you write.
        >
        > Harry
        >
        > **********************************
        > Henry George School of Social Science
        > of Los Angeles.
        > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
        > 818 352-4141
        > **********************************
        >
        >
        > From: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ust
        > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:15 PM
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [LeftLibertarian2] RE: Rothbardian land reform
        >
        >
        >
        > What a mess freedom would create! E.g., with freedom of
        speech, you get people saying things you might not want to hear. So?
        >
        >
        >
        > By the way, under other systems being advocated here, wouldn't
        much the same problem arise? Unless someone is proposing, here, to
        leave all titles alone and accept the status quo, then there are going
        to be changes and probably messy ones at that.
        >
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        >
        >
        > Dan
        >
        > Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
        >
        > You said:
        >
        >
        >
        > "say, the tenant farmer who comes to own the land after the
        revolutioin -- as an absolute owner,"
        >
        >
        >
        > I said:
        >
        >
        >
        > "I understand a lot of land was stolen from the Tories after the
        war was over."
        >
        >
        >
        > Maybe the tenant farmer didn't have a Rothbardian right to the land.
        >
        >
        >
        > Whata mess Rothbardianism would create.
        >
        >
        >
        > Harry
        >
        >
        >
        > **********************************
        >
        > Henry George School of Social Science
        >
        > of Los Angeles.
        >
        > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
        >
        > 818 352-4141
        >
        > **********************************
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > From: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ust
        > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:37 AM
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] RE: Rothbardian land reform
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I suppose you're talking about the American secession from
        Britain and not the Latin American countries I had in mind. I don't
        think there's a blanket assertion that would hold for all cases, but,
        to the extent that specific Tories held just claims, then the land
        should have been returned to them.
        >
        > I see no special difficulties here for Rothbaridan property rights
        theory. What's your point? Are you trying, once again, to conflate
        libertarianism with supporting the status quo? Do you think that,
        perhaps, American libertarians who liked the secession from Britain
        must support every last act that the secessionists took -- and,
        therefore, support the anti-libertarian acts of the same?
        >
        > Also, you seem to have a general hard on for Rothbard -- even to the
        extent that it seems to cloud your views him. Why is that?
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Dan
        >
        > Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
        >
        > I understand a lot of land was stolen from the Tories
        after the war was over.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I suppose that was ownership by force.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Harry
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **********************************
        >
        >
        > Henry George School of Social Science
        >
        >
        > of Los Angeles.
        >
        >
        > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
        >
        >
        > 818 352-4141
        >
        >
        > **********************************
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > From: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ust
        > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:05 AM
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Rothbardian land reform/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re:
        Industrialization of Agriculture
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > My guess would be the difference between seeing the
        just owner -- say, the tenant farmer who comes to own the land after
        the revolutioin -- as an absolute owner, while the Leftist land
        reformers would likely want to meddle in this ownership to limit it or
        make it dependent on the state -- albeit, likely a democratic
        socialist state rather than fascist one.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Dan
        >
        > Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > On 7/9/07, Richard Garner wrote:
        > > I would have thought that Rothbard would treat the original title
        as valid
        > > unless a legitimate owner could prove that they were entitled to it.
        >
        > At least in his discussion of feudal and quasi-feudal claims (like
        > Latin American latifundia and the holdings of landed aristocracies
        > like those in Britain), in which large tracts of land provide rental
        > incomes for the heirs of state grantees, he tended to view the people
        > living on the land and working it as the rightful owners. I think he
        > probably took a different view of the practical issues in America.
        > But in his discussion of Latin American land reform, for example, his
        > language struck me as almost indistinguishable from that of the most
        > radically leftist land reformer.
        >
        > --
        > Kevin Carson
        > Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
        > http://www.mutualist.org
        > Mutualist Blog http://mutualist.blogspot.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
        > Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at
        Yahoo! Games.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.