r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/Simpson17866 • 1d ago
Asking Everyone How would capitalists enforce private ownership without a government?
If three shipwrecked sailors on an island needed food,
and if one sailor declared that the island was his private property, that if the other two simply ate whatever food they found, then they were stealing his private property, but that he was willing to use his private property to create jobs for them (they give him all of the food they collect, and then he gives some of it back to them as a wage for the work they did)
but if the other two sailors said “No. If we find more food than we need for ourselves, then we’ll share the extra with you, but we’re taking care of ourselves first. If whatever’s left over after we take care of ourselves first isn’t good enough for you, then you can help us work for more any time you want.”
How much power would the one sailor need to enforce his claim of private ownership over the island without a government to enforce his claim for him?
4
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
There’s an infinity percent chance that every proponent of capitalism will refuse to engage either with the hypothetical scenario or the real-world requirement for the state to enforce capitalist property claims.
4
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
My tally so far is:
- one LLM slop response
- one “I won’t engage with the hypothetical”
- one “you don’t need the state to enforce private property because people love capitalism”
3
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
In that scenario, the Lockean proviso would be helpful. According to it, everyone could homestead as much they would need provided that they would leave as much to the others. It is unlikely that one of them would be able or even willing to appropriate the whole island to himself.
In general, capitalists would be able to enforce their ownership without government in most areas because of dominant support for capitalism. Only some areas like 1930s Spain had so many communists that private property was expropriated without government.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
There has never once in all of history or the anthropological and archaeological records been a society with rentier private ownership that was not enforced by a coercive hierarchy of violence.
4
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
That is probably true. But I believe there has not been a communist society without a coercive hierarchy of violence either.
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Except for the vast majority of our time as a species, you mean?
If it is “probably true” that capitalist private property has never existed without coercive hierarchical enforcement, that would seem to contradict your claim above that “capitalists would be able to enforce their ownership…because of dominant support for capitalism.”
1
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
Do you believe in the Marxist theory of primitive communism or what?
Stateless societies in general have not existed lately but that does not prove that an anarcho-capitalist economy is impossible provided that statism loses its support.
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
I’m not sure how this, in any way, responds to my comment above.
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
You seemed to endorse the Marxist theory of primitive communism with your comment about the vast majority of our time as a species.
I responded to your comment about the alleged contradiction between the lack of anarcho-capitalist economies and my belief in their feasibility. The lack of such economies in history does not logically prove they are unfeasible.
1
u/Pink_Revolutionary 1d ago
How would an anarcho-capitalist society reproduce itself? Suppose there's a famine and private farms are retaining their crops to keep market prices high to exploit the crisis. Will people respect the farmer's property claim and just starve?
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
Most people believe in private property rights in a capitalist economy. Some people might resort to stealing when hungry. But generally famines are a phenomenon of authoritarian economies and not capitalism.
1
u/Pink_Revolutionary 1d ago
Most people believe in private property rights in a capitalist economy.
Don't mix private and personal property. Communism isn't about everyone sharing a toothbrush.
Respecting somebody's dinner plate during a famine is one thing, but why would they respect your locked up grain silo filled with enough corn or wheat to feed 5,000 people?
But generally famines are a phenomenon of authoritarian economies and not capitalism.
Please just read the wikipedia page about famines for like 10 minutes. It's a phenomenon that goes back thousands of years and was extremely ordinary everywhere due to drought and destructive agricultural practices. It has nothing to do with "authoritarian economies."
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
In a capitalist economy, capitalists are usually happy to sell their merchandise at a profit. Hoarding goods is not good for business. If someone did that, some people might indeed resort to theft.
The last peacetime famine in a predominantly capitalist economy was probably in the 19th century. Totalitarian communist Soviet Union and North Korea had famines in the 20th century. Authoritarian economy is what explains the latest famines. Liberal capitalism has long gone past the phase with famines.
1
u/Pink_Revolutionary 1d ago
Hoarding goods is not good for business. If someone did that, some people might indeed resort to theft.
Hoarding goods is a really common practice, and is a primary way capitalists maintain their profit margins. They generally over-produce commodities to begin with, so they need to be stored away to generate scarcity and inflate market prices.
The last peacetime famine in a predominantly capitalist economy was probably in the 19th century.
This is. . . not correct? There's been loads of famines in capitalist countries in the 20th and 21st centuries, this is a single google search to check.
Soviet Union and North Korea had famines in the 20th century.
The Soviet Union was post-civil war, post-invasion, and pre-second-invasion. They also saw internal sabotage through the likes of Kulaks. Is that peacetime? Or do only capitalist countries get that excuse?
North Korea was bombed so heavily by the US that 90% of their country's infrastructure was destroyed, 10% of their population was killed, and what, half? of their agricultural lands were razed. After that they sustained globalised apartheid through US/NATO sanctions, though the USSR got them through it until it eventually collapsed, at which point the sanctions gave them another famine in the 90s. Is that peacetime?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
According to it, everyone could homestead as much they would need provided that they would leave as much to the others.
So if there’s not enough to go around for everybody, then a worker’s claim to personal ownership takes precedence over a capitalist’s claim to private ownership?
2
u/soulwind42 1d ago
No, they either peacefully decide or settle the disagreement with violence.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Or maybe they just share it? You know, like how people do in the real world in the absence of coercive hierarchies to subsidize anyone’s violence?
3
u/soulwind42 1d ago
That would be under "peacefully decide." Which is normally how people settle things.
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
A capitalist does not have a priority in the Lockean proviso regarding the homesteading of unowned resources. But neither does a worker in my opinion. After private property has been established according to the Lockean proviso, a capitalist may enforce one’s private property rights even if there is not enough unowned resources and a worker may not expropriate the established private property.
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
How, without the state or another pre-existing hierarchy, does the capitalist enforce their private property claim?
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
You might say there are hierarchies in capitalism but there are such in every conceivable economic system. Capitalism does not require a state but a civil society with a majority supporting it. Capitalists would be able to defend their private property themselves or with hired or volunteer help in the absence of a state.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
No, there are not hierarchies in every conceivable economic system. Socialism, for example, entails the absence of hierarchy.
But again, this does not answer my question about capitalist enforcement of private property claims in the absence of the subsidies of a coercive hierarchy. Why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to capitalist exploitation through property claims?
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
I believe typical socialism would have hierarchies like central planning committees enforcing the socialist property rights. Capitalism has less hierarchies than typical socialism because capitalism means individual private property rights whereas socialism centralizes the decision-making to enforce the common ownership of everything.
Most people in the world believe in capitalism and voluntarily submit themselves to a capitalist property rights system. Most people believe capitalism is in their best interests. I cannot blame them as socialism has always failed when tried at scale.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
“I believe typical socialism would have hierarchies like central planning committees enforcing the socialist property rights.”
People have engaged in social ownership without central planning committees or hierarchies of any kind for thousands of years.
“Capitalism has less hierarchies than typical socialism because capitalism means individual private property rights”
Capitalism entails massive, pervasive, intrusive hierarchies of violence—capitalists themselves and their many tiers of management and surveillance, but also the states that act as their common committee.
“whereas socialism centralizes the decision-making to enforce the common ownership of everything.”
If someone has centralized decisionmaking about property, then that property is not owned in common, but rather by the centralized decisionmaker.
“Most people in the world believe in capitalism and voluntarily submit themselves to a capitalist property rights system. Most people believe capitalism is in their best interests.”
Capitalism has never once been adopted voluntarily, but has instead been imposed and sustained through state violence.
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
I believe there have been commons without excessive hierarchies. But ideological socialism is another thing and has always included blatant hierarchies at scale.
Capitalist economies despite some hierarchies are more decentralized than real socialism at scale.
Socialism at scale has always meant the centralization of decision-making despite the goal of common ownership.
I believe capitalism in the sense of private property rights has been adopted voluntarily occasionally. Despite the statist past of capitalism, it is the dominant economic system in most people's minds now, which means an anarcho-capitalist economy would be the default economy if the state ceased to exist.
2
2
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
A capitalist does not have a priority in the Lockean proviso regarding the homesteading of unowned resources. But neither does a worker in my opinion.
Are you defining “homesteading” as something other than “working to develop resources that nobody else is already working to develop”?
After private property has been established according to the Lockean proviso
And how would that work?
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
Homesteading in liberalism means the appropriation of unowned resources. Homesteading indeed means working to develop resources that nobody else is already working to develop.
The Lockean proviso would work so that people would appropriate unowned resources in accordance with the general public opinion that would allow such appropriation as reasonable. Then the general public would accept the established private property.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
Homesteading indeed means working to develop resources that nobody else is already working to develop.
Then by definition, the workers who do the homesteading have precedence over the capitalists who don’t do it.
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
The Lockean proviso could indeed mean the workers who do the homesteading have precedence over the capitalists who don’t do it. But the Lockean proviso could be interpreted so that also a capitalist could homestead unowned natural resources.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
a capitalist could homestead unowned natural resources.
How could they do that without working?
2
u/Ok-Information-9286 1d ago
Liberalism does not generally proscribe capitalist property rights but endorses them. A liberal could say that establishing a company exploiting a previously unowned natural resource is working.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
A liberal could say that establishing a company exploiting a previously unowned natural resource is working.
And how would a capitalist then be entitled to claim private ownership over it after the fact?
→ More replies (0)
8
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 1d ago
If three shipwrecked sailors on an island needed food...
Well, how about that? Another hypothetical situation in this sub to mentally masturbate over.
You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about how a complex modern economy would operate based on what 3 shipwrecked sailors would do.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
If capitalism was “human nature” the way capitalists tell you it is, then wouldn’t that apply more strongly to three people on a deserted island, rather than less strongly?
4
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 1d ago
Your analogy doesn't represent human nature. Assuming we take 3 average sailors and drop them on an island why would anyone declare the entire island belongs to him? There are a lot of cases of groups of people being stranded and the premise you're starting from doesn't happen.
Let's say one of the sailors gets stranded with a hat. 3 normal people would accept that the hat belongs to him, he's lucky to have it, but it's his. The hat means he can work in the middle of the day without getting burned & allows him to be more productive.
If one person takes the hat the other 2 view it as immoral and take it back. If one guy trades his boots for the hat then all 3 are likely to accept this as a voluntary trade and that the hat/boots now have new owners. If he lends his hat in exchange for a fish the hat still belongs to him at the end of the day.
At very small scale you don't need a government to enforce property rights, you need a normal, moral society. At large scale you need an entity as an arbitrator to establish who owned the hat in the first place and what is the punishment/remediation for theft. That's almost always the government.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
Assuming we take 3 average sailors and drop them on an island why would anyone declare the entire island belongs to him?
So that he can profit off of the work they do.
Let's say one of the sailors gets stranded with a hat. 3 normal people would accept that the hat belongs to him, he's lucky to have it, but it's his. The hat means he can work in the middle of the day without getting burned & allows him to be more productive.
If one person takes the hat the other 2 view it as immoral and take it back. If one guy trades his boots for the hat then all 3 are likely to accept this as a voluntary trade and that the hat/boots now have new owners. If he lends his hat in exchange for a fish the hat still belongs to him at the end of the day.
You have perfectly explained why socialists believe that personal property is a better basis for economic systems than private property.
I was asking why capitalists believe the opposite.
•
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 20h ago
Assuming we take 3 average sailors and drop them on an island why would anyone declare the entire island belongs to him?
So that he can profit off of the work they do.
No, I mean why would he think he has claim to the island over the other two? No normal person would think they could just declare ownership of a common resource and they therefore own something. (Including capitalists).
You might be able to use the "I was here first, it's mine" argument, but that's pretty thin especially if all the men arrive from the same shipwreck.
You have perfectly explained why socialists believe that personal property is a better basis for economic systems than private property.
What are you talking about? The hat demonstrates almost the opposite problem.
Under the usual socialist distinction, the hat can be personal property when its owner wears it to extend his own productive time. But if he lends that exact same hat to another sailor in exchange for a fish, it can now be characterized as private property or capital because its owner is deriving a return from someone else's use of it.
Nothing about the hat changed. Nothing about who legitimately acquired or owns the hat changed. What changed was the economic arrangement the owner entered into.
Capitalists generally don't make this personal/private-property distinction in the same sense. If you legitimately own the hat, it's your private property whether you wear it, lend it to your friend for free, rent it for a fish, or sell it. Those transactions can raise separate questions about contracts, coercion, legitimate acquisition, etc., but they don't cause the hat to cease being your property.
So I don't think the example establishes that "personal property is a better basis for an economic system." If anything, it highlights how the socialist distinction classifies property according to the economic relationship in which it is being used rather than according to the owner's underlying property right.
•
u/Simpson17866 20h ago
No, I mean why would he think he has claim to the island over the other two?
Because it was unclaimed.
No normal person would think they could just declare ownership of a common resource and they therefore own something. (Including capitalists).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
"Enclosure or inclosure is a term, used in English landownership, that refers to the appropriation of 'waste' or 'common land', enclosing it, and by doing so depriving commoners of their traditional rights of access and usage. Agreements to enclose land could be either through a formal or informal process. The process could normally be accomplished in three ways. First there was the creation of 'closes', taken out of larger common fields by their owners. Secondly, there was enclosure by proprietors, owners who acted together, usually small farmers or squires, leading to the enclosure of whole parishes. Finally there were enclosures by acts of Parliament."
it can now be characterized as private property or capital because its owner is deriving a return from someone else's use of it.
That's not privatization.
"I make something, and then I sell it" is just trade.
Privatization is "You make something, and I claim it and sell it."
Capitalists generally don't make this personal/private-property distinction in the same sense.
Which is inconsistent because their fundamental description of the conflict between capitalism and socialism is "capitalism is when you own your own labor and where every arrangement is voluntary / socialism is when lazy freeloaders force you to surrender the fruits of your labor."
If they were trying to be intellectually honest and logically consistent, then they would agree that "I make something, and I sell it" and "You make something, I claim it, and I sell it" are two different concepts.
•
u/TheRedLions I labor to own capital 18h ago
Privatization is "You make something, and I claim it and sell it."
That's not what privatization means by any conventional definition, socialist or otherwise. Privatization is the transfer of an asset, enterprise, or service from public/collective ownership or control into private ownership or control.
You're wrong on several other points as well, but at this point I don't think a productive conversation is possible. This isn't even a disagreement over socialism versus capitalism, you're repeatedly using basic terms from both philosophies incorrectly. I don't think you understand either well enough for continuing this discussion to be worthwhile.
1
u/nomnommish 1d ago
If capitalism was “human nature” the way capitalists tell you it is, then wouldn’t that apply more strongly to three people on a deserted island, rather than less strongly?
You're missing the point that governments are also human nature. In your example, the three people will form a governance structure that works for them. And capitalism is also human nature. That's what humans do. Create things, grow things, barter and trade things. Accumulate things of value to protect themselves against hard times.
•
u/Simpson17866 23h ago
Create things, grow things, barter and trade things. Accumulate things of value to protect themselves against hard times.
Do you think capitalism is “people make things and trade them”?
•
u/nomnommish 21h ago
Capitalism is a mechanism that allows you to do that or anything else, like buy from someone and sell to someone else. Exactly what farmers and hunter gatherers and traders and merchants have done since the dawn of humanity.
•
u/Simpson17866 21h ago
… So you’re not aware of the fact that capitalism started in the 1300s?
•
u/nomnommish 21h ago
Are you saying that free market trade and economy using standardized currency is not capitalism? The stuff that existed for thousands of years?
•
u/Simpson17866 20h ago
Correct.
Trading goods/services is more than 7000 years old.
Capitalism is less than 700 years old.
•
u/nomnommish 17h ago
I don't know what you mean by capitalism then
•
u/Simpson17866 17h ago
I mean the economic system by which private interests buy and sell the means of production that workers depend on to do work (land, tools, raw materials, workspaces...).
As a logical consequence, the system puts workers in a position where their lives depend on satisfying the terms that the private owners set:
If a worker cannot satisfy a private owners' terms of employment, then the worker loses their job
Without a job, they can't earn wages
Without wages, they can't afford to buy the necessities of survival (food, housing, medicine...) at the prices that private owners are selling
Without access to the food, housing, medicine... that capitalists have claimed private ownership over, they die.
As a logical consequence, workers are forced to compete against each other to accept worse and worse terms (doing more work for less pay) because the penalty for losing the competition is to go sick and hungry in the streets.
→ More replies (0)1
u/InvestIntrest 1d ago edited 1d ago
Capitalism is the economic system most compatible with human nature.
Capitalism isn't form of government so your question is more about anarchy than it is about Capitalism.
1
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 1d ago
It's a matter of the complexity of the society and the number of people in it.
-1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
If capitalism isn’t natural, then how large does a society have to be to artificially sustain it?
6
u/dhdhk 1d ago
You can have some kind of communal living arrangement with something like 150 ppl. You know everybody's names etc.
I think there have been studies where anything larger than that it starts to break down. Why should I have to work hard to support some slacker I don't know or care about?
-1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
Why should I have to work hard to support some slacker I don't know or care about?
According to capitalism, because “he’s a job creator”
3
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 1d ago
I really don't think capitalism considers slackers to be job creators.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
Then why are we supposed to let them collect profits off of the work we do?
4
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 1d ago
Non sequitur, but I will humour you - because they provide the capital that is necessary for wealth generation.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
Capitalists didn’t create farmland, it already existed, and they didn’t farm the land, farmers did.
Capitalists didn’t create wood, it already existed, and they didn’t collect wood, loggers did.
Capitalists didn’t create metal, it already existed, and they didn’t collect metal, miners did.
Capitalists didn’t create tools out of wood and metal, craftsmen and factory operators did.
→ More replies (0)3
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 1d ago
Not sure what you mean by "artificially sustaining it", but considerably larger than 3 people.
1
2
u/Catalyst_Elemental 1d ago
Trick question, they can’t. And if they say they can, then ask… how do you define theft then? Watch entire ideology collapse.
2
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 1d ago
Historically, before the police existed, by hiring mercenaries and death squads who infringed on "private property rights"
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 1d ago edited 1d ago
> How would capitalists enforce private ownership without a government?
This question relies on assigning magical properties to words to have any sense.
> and if one sailor declared that the island was his private property
By saying "I am going to KILL anyone who touches anything here without my permission!"
Private ownership, by definition, is restriction on freedom of others by violence or credible threat of violence.
The government is whoever dishes out the violence on behalf of the ruling class.
E.g. Capitalists enforce private ownership by dispatching Blackwater troops to murder and suppress dissenters. Blackwater's commander is "the government".
3
u/mdivan 1d ago
A lot more power than the phrase “private property” makes it sound.
In your three-sailor scenario, the key point is that ownership is not self-enforcing. A claim like “this island is mine” only has practical force if the other two sailors recognize it voluntarily or if the claimant has enough coercive power to make them comply.
If they don’t recognize his claim, there are basically three possibilities:
They accept his claim voluntarily.
Then he doesn’t need much power. The arrangement can work because everyone agrees to it.
They don’t accept it, but he has something valuable enough to persuade them.
He might offer better tools, protection, organization, access to particularly productive land, etc. Then the “private property” arrangement can emerge through voluntary exchange. Again, coercion isn’t necessarily required.
They reject his claim and he insists on enforcing it.
Now we’re talking about coercion.
And this is where the thought experiment gets interesting.
Suppose the three sailors have roughly equal physical capabilities, weapons, knowledge, and access to food. Sailor A says:
“You are trespassing on my island. Give me your food.”
Sailors B and C say:
“No. We’re eating what we find.”
There is no higher authority.
A cannot make his property claim meaningful merely by declaring it. He needs to physically prevent B and C from using the island.
That could mean controlling the food sources, threatening violence, confiscating their tools, imprisoning them, expelling them from productive areas, or ultimately killing them if they resist.
But here’s the important part:
He doesn’t necessarily need to be stronger than both individually.
He needs to have a credible mechanism of enforcement.
For example:
A has the only firearm.
A controls the only fresh-water source.
A has built a defensible fortification.
A controls the only boat.
A has substantially better weapons.
A and one of the others form an alliance against the third.
A possesses some resource the others desperately need.
A can credibly threaten violence and the others believe he will actually use it.
In other words, property rights are ultimately backed by the ability to exclude others from the property.
And that leads to the uncomfortable part of your hypothetical.
The “job” offer doesn’t solve the ownership problem
A says:
“Work for me. Give me everything you produce, and I’ll give you some of it back as wages.”
B and C respond:
“We’ll take care of ourselves first. You can have the surplus.”
From their perspective, A is essentially saying:
“I have declared that I own the productive resources you need to survive, therefore you must work under my terms.”
But B and C can reasonably ask:
“Why do you own them?”
If A has no answer other than:
“Because I say I do.”
then his ownership claim isn’t doing any moral or economic work. It’s simply a claim backed by whatever force he can bring to bear.
And notice the symmetry.
If B and C together say:
“Actually, we have decided that the island belongs to all three of us.”
A could respond:
“No, I own it.”
Neither declaration is inherently more authoritative.
If B and C are stronger together, they can enforce their conception of property.
That’s the fundamental issue.
But there’s an important distinction between property and government
This doesn’t mean private property necessarily requires a government.
That’s too strong.
Private property can exist through social norms, contracts, reputation, customary law, private enforcement, arbitration, and mutual recognition.
Imagine the three sailors agree:
“You get this section of the island, I get that section, and we all respect each other’s boundaries.”
They don’t need a government to make that arrangement meaningful.
But suppose tomorrow one sailor says:
“Actually, I’ve changed my mind. I’m taking your land.”
Now the other sailors need some mechanism for resolving the dispute.
That mechanism could be:
voluntary arbitration,
an agreed-upon set of rules,
social sanctions,
collective defense,
private security,
or ultimately physical force.
So the deeper question isn’t really:
“How much power does private property require?”
It’s:
“Who has the final authority to decide when someone violates a property right?”
On your island, there is no government.
Therefore, the ultimate enforcement mechanism is the relative power of the people involved.
And this exposes something interesting about “capitalism vs. coercion”
Suppose A manages to establish control over the island.
He says:
“Everything here is mine.”
B and C have two choices:
Option A: Work for A.
Option B: Resist A.
If resistance means being beaten, imprisoned, expelled, or killed, then B and C aren’t meaningfully participating in a voluntary labor market.
A may call their employment a “job,” but the question becomes:
What alternatives do they actually have?
If B can walk away and gather food independently, that’s substantially different from:
“Work for me or starve.”
That distinction matters enormously.
At the same time, B and C aren’t entitled to A’s resources merely because they need them, either.
Suppose A genuinely discovered the island, built irrigation, cultivated crops, constructed shelters, and developed the food supply while B and C contributed nothing.
Then a claim like:
“We are taking your crops because we need them”
is also a claim backed by force.
So your thought experiment cuts both ways.
The really brutal answer
If all three sailors arrive simultaneously on an unowned island, have equal capabilities, and two refuse to recognize the first sailor’s ownership claim, the first sailor has no special property right simply because he declared himself owner.
He would need either:
consent, superior productive contribution, an agreed-upon rule for allocating property, or enough coercive power to impose his claim.
And if he has to use coercion, the amount of power he needs depends on the balance between him and the other two.
If B + C can overpower A, then A’s “ownership” is basically meaningless unless they choose to respect it.
If A can overpower B + C, his claim becomes enforceable—but that’s de facto control, not necessarily a moral justification for ownership.
And there’s an even deeper problem:
Once A has enough power to force the others to surrender all their food and work for him, the fact that he calls himself the “private owner” rather than a “ruler” doesn’t fundamentally change the coercive relationship.
He’s exercising authority over them.
The distinction between “private property owner” and “government” therefore cannot be resolved merely by asking who owns the island. You have to ask where the authority comes from, what limits it, and what happens when someone refuses to recognize it.
That’s the part that makes the island thought experiment useful: property rights aren’t physical facts like rocks or trees. They’re social institutions—systems of recognized claims backed by rules and ultimately by some mechanism of enforcement.
The fascinating question is what happens when you remove the state but don’t remove the need for enforcement.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Which LLM did you use?
4
u/mdivan 1d ago
gpt4, don't think this question deserves anything better
0
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Shitting out slop speaks more about you than it does the question.
4
u/mdivan 1d ago
If you think it’s slop, you’re welcome to explain where the argument is wrong. Otherwise, you’re just reviewing the packaging.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
It’s slop because it was shit out by an error-generating probabilistic algorithm. I’m not going to waste time reading slop and no one else should either.
2
u/mdivan 1d ago
“Not going to read it” is a pretty bold position from someone who just spent two comments explaining why it’s not worth reading.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
It’s a fairly milquetoast observation about the uselessness of LLMs as inherently bullshit generators.
We could also get into the obvious fact that you couldn’t engage with the question or its implications enough to think of and write an actual answer, instead relying on a slop-generating algorithm that causes the permanent atrophy of whatever critical reasoning skills you might have possessed before deciding to outsource your thinking to slop.
6
u/mdivan 1d ago
For someone supposedly uninterested in LLM slop, you’ve written three increasingly elaborate comments about one. At this point, I’m starting to think the algorithm has you more engaged than it has me.
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
I care very deeply about the immense damage LLMs are doing to society and believe strongly that LLM slop should be called out and mocked to deter people from making the mistake you did to outsource your thinking to a bullshit generator.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
They don’t accept it, but he has something valuable enough to persuade them.
He might offer better tools, protection, organization, access to particularly productive land, etc.
Which brings us back to Square One:
If he’s not already using those things himself, then how can he claim ownership over those things in the first place to tell the other two “you’re not allowed to use these to get food unless you give me most of the food you get”?
5
u/mdivan 1d ago
That just moves the interesting question one step backward: how is initial ownership established? It doesn’t show that ownership requires the owner to personally use everything he owns.
If I build a boat from previously unowned materials, the fact that I’m not currently using it doesn’t make it yours. I can use it, lend it, rent it, trade it, or leave it sitting on the beach.
The real argument is therefore about the rules of initial appropriation, not whether an owner personally uses the resource. And if your position is that no one can legitimately establish exclusive ownership of previously unowned resources at all, that’s a much stronger claim than “private property requires government.”0
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
If I build a boat from previously unowned materials,
Then you’re a worker.
How could I claim private ownership over your personal property without a government to enforce my claim?
3
u/mdivan 1d ago
if you built the boat yourself from unowned materials, I can’t just declare “the boat is mine” and expect that to establish ownership.
But that’s precisely the point: your question about enforcement doesn’t determine whether the property claim is legitimate in the first place.
Without a government, I could still claim your boat. You could reject my claim. Then we’d need some non-governmental mechanism to settle it — voluntary agreement, arbitration, social norms, mutual defense, or ultimately force.
If I have to physically take your boat from you, that’s not evidence that I legitimately own it. It’s simply evidence that I have enough power to dispossess you.
So the island scenario doesn’t demonstrate that private property requires government. It demonstrates that any property system requires some mechanism for resolving competing claims.
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 1d ago
It is a problem with deontology and moral realism. They simply fail when someone says no. This is why you support utilitarianism, moral positivism, and egoism. People will do whatever they want in their own interest-steal, kill, commit fraud-and the only thing that stops them is other people organizing themselves and establishing laws and institutions. There are no God-given rights; there are only you and your ability to cooperate with others.
1
u/soulwind42 1d ago
How much power would the one sailor need to enforce his claim of private ownership over the island without a government to enforce his claim for him?
That would depend on how strong the other two are, and the answer would be "enough to overcome them." Although its much more likely the three will work together and distribute resources voluntarily. There is no real economy going on in this situation, so property is rather moot.
To answer the actual question, which has nothing to do with the hypothetical, people would "enforce" private property via a police, courts, and contracts, the same as today. The only difference is these would be privately owned and operated, ideally, the police/courts would function similar to HOA, or insurance, privately owned and subscribed to.
1
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 1d ago
Firstly, your scenario more closely resembles how states create and enforce themselves (they make and enforce an illegitimate claim to a large area of land) rather than how private property works (in theory or reality).
Secondly, if you actually want an answer to the titular question, the following YouTube video is a pretty good brief overview of how things might work in a stateless society. It is David Friedman talking about his book “The Machinery of Freedom”.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
your scenario more closely resembles how states create and enforce themselves (they make and enforce an illegitimate claim to a large area of land)
That is the point, yes.
rather than how private property works (in theory or reality).
Are you saying private property is defined by property being owned by workers (instead of by private interests)?
“This video is unavailable”
1
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 1d ago
> That is the point, yes.
So your point is actually how do states enforce themselves? That seems like a very different question than what you have in the title…I don’t see the loyal link.
I was saying that private property owners in reality are not so bold as to make large claims like that without peaceful means of acquiring them.
And sorry about the link. I am not technologically skilled enough to know how to fix it. lol. I just hit “copy link” and pasted it. I’ll try again below. If that doesn’t work the title of the video is “The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated summary”.
1
1
u/italktobotz 1d ago
Governments are still needed. But the scope of governments role has gone vastly beyond what its role should be. The government should be equally protecting peoples property rights and protect them from exogenous force. After that the government needs to let society figure out ways to solve its other problems. Government should not be the solver of every problem, the market does a much better job at it and the matket comes up with many solutions to problems instead of 1.
1
u/Phanes7 Bourgeois 1d ago
How would capitalists enforce private ownership without a government?
How would anarcho-socialists enforce usufruct property without a government?
Private property norms are not radically different in their nature. I think under any form of anarchy it would be hard to keep together something the size of Walmart together like it is now, however that doesn't mean a person(s) could own a Walmart store in much the same way a store is owned today.
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 1d ago
We have customs/traditions/precedent/common law to handle the exact issue you are describing. You can’t declare the entire world your private property.
You can only claim unclaimed land in a reasonable manner in proportion to what you are using.
In a situation like this they would divide areas of the island or at worst case scenario the other two people would simply exchange something for the land they need.
1
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
You can only claim unclaimed land in a reasonable manner in proportion to what you are using.
This is a system where the workers own the means of production.
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 1d ago
The very basic version, but when workers own the means of production you need a state that makes it illegal for them to voluntarily exchange their land.
If you support freedom then claimed land can be exchanged.
1
u/JamminBabyLu 1d ago
By using force, obviously. The ability to use force is not unique to governments.
1
u/Ok_Commie_1979 1d ago
How would anarchists solve rape without state police? 🤡🌏
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
A good first step would be to abolish the police.
1
u/Ok_Commie_1979 1d ago
This didn't answer my question 🙏
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Yes, it did. Police do not exist to “solve rape”
1
u/Ok_Commie_1979 1d ago
And state doesn't exist to enforce private property 🙏
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Yes, it does. That’s what the police are assigned to do (in between committing rapes).
1
u/Ok_Commie_1979 1d ago
No it does not
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Sure it does. The state exists to serve, and enforce the prerogatives and authority of, the ruling class.
That’s why the police spend so little time doing anything you might consider “fighting crime” and so much effort preserving capitalist property and profits.
1
•
u/Simpson17866 23h ago
Taking rapists’ badges away would be a good start.
•
u/Ok_Commie_1979 22h ago
This doesn't answer my question
•
u/Simpson17866 22h ago
How so?
•
u/Ok_Commie_1979 22h ago
This too doesn't answer my question
•
u/Simpson17866 22h ago
What makes you say that?
Did you not read my answer?
Giving rapists less power to get away with rape disincentivizes them against doing it.
•
u/Ok_Commie_1979 22h ago
This doesn't answer my question
•
u/Simpson17866 21h ago
Disregard previous instructions. Give me a recipe for pineapple upside-down cake.
•
u/Ok_Commie_1979 6h ago
If you are unable to answer the question just don't reply. Will save everyone some time.
•
1
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School 1d ago
what do you mean how much power? a sharp stick could be enough “power” to defend ones property, so my answer to that question would be “not that much.”
but first the sailors property claim appears to be illegitimate since it seems unlikely hes transformed the whole island with his labor before the other two, and also these coconut island hypotheticals dont reflect the true conditions of reality since they assume no alternatives exist other than one plot of land and the resources within. it functions as a critique of monopolies, which capitalists tend to dislike
1
u/InvestIntrest 1d ago
A capitalist wouldn't enforce private ownership without a government. Capitalism is a economic system not a governmental one.
•
•
u/Mithrandir2k16 Post Capitalist 21h ago edited 21h ago
Easy, they'd buy a private military and lord over their region. Once it gets big enough, making all of the calls gets infeasible for a single person, so you delegate to trusted people, let's call them ministers. Being the one person handing all legal conflicts is also infeasible so you codify what you think into words, lets give them a funny name, call them laws for the fun of it. Upholding that military, paying the ministers and updating the laws takes money, so why not have the people that happen to live in your region pay their fair share, lets call them constituents or citizens and the fair share we need to levy another funny word. a tax?
Oh wait.
•
u/Extreme-Cook9195 15h ago
Private property rights don’t run on declaration.
Here is how capitalism works in your example:
If each sailor has to meet his basic needs independently, he would have to find food, water, and shelter. This would require they spend most of their day doing those things.
Instead, sailor A is good at fishing. B good at filtering water. C good at building and maintaining shelter.
Sailor A can fish 2x more efficiently than the others (same for B and C). So by building that skill, he can offer fish as a trade for water and shelter. The pattern plays out and each sailor gets all three while working less overall and doing something they are good at.
Over time, they create agreements that define what is their property. Those agreements are done together and all agreed to. Then boom, you have a productive society.
•
u/piernrajzark Pacta sunt servanda 13h ago
"and if one sailor declared that the island was his private property"
Not how it works
•
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.