1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16013/the-rationale-for-total-privatization/

The Rationale for Total Privatization

March 14, 2011 by

To progress toward a truly free society, expropriated owners or their legal heirs should be restored as private owners to all public property. FULL ARTICLE by Hans-Hermann Hoppe


David C March 14, 2011 at 10:53 am

I imagine that in cases where the rightful owner of a public property is hard or non existent to identify, a just solution would be to auction off the property and redistribute the money from the sale to the taxpayers proportionally or equitably. One example that comes to mind is the vast US government property holdings and the people who have been defrauded out of their lifetime incomes by social security. Just take those vast land holdings, auction them off, and use that to compensate the people who were forced into the social security system.

nock March 14, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Re: Hoppe’s arguments for -libertarian- property rights

“I claim the moon as mine.” I am the first, and therefore it makes no sense to say it belongs to the second, third, or forth.

This is not too far off from what Hoppe argues. I.e., you have to accept absolute libertarian private property rights from the outset to accept what he says. People can object to his theory based on other non-libertarian theories. His approach to proof only begs the question, among other logical fallacies that are in argumentation ethics. David Gordon is too polite, but this is basically what he thinks as well.

http://media.mises.org/mp3/MU2010/046_MisesU_2010_Gordon.mp3 (at ~40 minutes point to 55)
http://media.mises.org/mp3/MU2010/053_MisesU_2010_PanelB.mp3 (~34 min)

augusto March 14, 2011 at 12:45 pm

nock, property rights aren’t established by simply “claiming” something is yours. For the moon to be yours, you’d have to actually go there, put a fence all around it, and protect it, or otherwise do something productive with the land.

JE March 14, 2011 at 5:13 pm

One could make a reasonable argument that claiming something is all that’s needed to establish ownership. However, such a system would certainly not establish nock as the owner of the Moon, because it’s highly unlikely that he (or anyone else) can show sufficient evidence of being the first to make such a claim.

Inquisitor March 15, 2011 at 8:36 am

His argument is fairly more extensive than that, as in he mentions why it matters to be the first.

Iain March 14, 2011 at 12:40 pm


No, you figure out why what you said was incorrect.


Coincidentally, NPR has been running stories about “transportation apartheid,” yea a little exaggeration, and how when the highway system was built a lot of times it was built through low-income black neighborhoods. It got me to thinking about how hoppe’s idea could really help inner city communities and individuals and everyone else really.

pbergn March 14, 2011 at 7:14 pm


It is the nature of Man to dominate… Thus the conflicts are unavoidable where there is even slightest interaction, EVEN in the abundance of resources…

A brilliant proof of that are on-line chat rooms and the blogs, such as this one :-))

People insult each other, and try to dominate EVEN when they have no material gain from it – just to satisfy their egos, their intrinsic biological need to establish dominance… We can’t escape it – it is our curse. As social mammals, it is in our biological nature to use aggression as an evolutionary preemptive tactics of preserving our domain and establishing ourselves as viable sexual partners, to carry on the gene pool of the species… It is all over the Nature, whether you like it or not… Take the prison system, public schools, army, inner-city neighborhoods, gangs, Internet, etc… Everywhere – aggression is a norm, civility is an aberration that has to be thought from the young age…

And besides, the whole notion of privatizing the strategic resources, such as roads is just silly… This will not only not prevent conflicts, but plunge the society into the constant state of petty warfare and bickering, much like it was in Dark Ages…

The smaller property-owning entities will eventually ally in the face of the threat of the external aggressor, and will inevitably give birth to the ultimate alliance known to us as “the State”…

There is NO WAY around it, believe me, if all of Human History means anything…

Andy March 15, 2011 at 1:00 am

I agree 100%, pbergn. Demolition Man or Robocop? lol Our new king would be some perverted version of a Libertarian, if you could ever non-agressively remove what we have now.

Joshua May 4, 2011 at 9:23 am

Online chat rooms are not an example of economic conflict

P.M.Lawrence March 14, 2011 at 10:30 pm

Schools and hospitals, unlike streets, were not first common goods before being turned into “public” goods.

Once you untangle the double negatives, you find an assertion that streets were first common goods before being turned into “public” goods. But this is wrong; unmade roads were. If you go back far enough, that was the technical distinction between “street” and “road”, that streets were made and surfaced, while roads weren’t. You don’t get out of this by accurately pointing out that these days both sorts have had had work done on them; that only means that you’re not allowing the history of unworked roads into consideration anyway, so you can’t rest on that history. And if you’re looking at roads and streets that have been homesteaded, as it were, it comes down to who did it and to whom they got transferred.

mstob March 15, 2011 at 6:26 am

How strict is Hoppe’s definition of easement?

If a state owned beach is being reverted back to private hands, what sort of development can be made on it? Does my right of easement on this beach mean that any party can choose to alter it as long as I can still swim, sit in the sun, walk around?

If I want to enjoy the beach for its beauty, calmness, quiet, can someone choose to develop a large beach resort there?

I guess this all relates back to how to propely homestead nature reserves and undeveloped land. I want the beach to remain quiet and serene, so how can I really “mix” my labour with it?

Colin Phillips March 15, 2011 at 8:41 am

This also confuses me. It sounds to me that in order to make a nature reserve that preserves the “undeveloped” look, you’d have to put up some sort of fence around the are you want to protect, that is big enough that the fencing is over the horizon.

I don’t think your easement refers to the quietness of the beach, only your access to go to the beach. On the other hand, if you have “homesteaded” this easement, and thereafter a resort is built which blasts the area with Beach Boys music constantly, I suppose you could argue that their music is a noise pollution of your easement.

mstob March 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Take the example of the homeless who camp on the beach. They have tents standing up in one place for weeks at a time. It is understood by others around them that this stop is their own property. They spend time on the beach, go into the water, sunbathe, etc. At night they sleep there.

What does their right to easement include? What steps would a developer take to not alter the fundamental character of the land.

Inquisitor March 15, 2011 at 12:54 pm

I’m pretty sure this is something that would develop in common law over time rather than a standard that can be deduced a priori. A lot of libertarians think the aim is to derive every legal principle, right down to the specifics, from first principles. But it isn’t. The point is to determine what is and is not legitimate. The particulars are, as always, determined in actual practice.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: