Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

There is, he continued,
no middle ground between absolute communism,
on the one hand, which holds that a man has a
right to lay his hand on anything, which has
no other man 1 s hands upon it, no matter who
may have been the producer; and the principle
of individual dominion, as against all other
men, over the products and acquisitions of
his 0 wn 1abo r, wh e ther hereta Ln them i n his
actual possession or not.(58)
For S poone r, theref 0 r e, the 0 c c upan c y pr inc i pIe wa s not
only a contradictory middle-of-the-road position between
commun ism and individual sovereignty, but a viol
a t ion 0 f the nat u r a I righ t s pr inc i pie 0 f s elf own e r ­
s hip, a s well. Howe ve r, S po0 n e r s tood virt uall y a Ione
on this issue. Benjamin Tucker was extremely critical.
11 I call Spooner 1 s work on Intellectual Property positively
foolish,1I he wrote
because it is fundamentally foolish, -- that
is to say, its discussion of the acquisition
of pro per t y s tar t s wi t h a bas i c pr opos i t ion
that must be looked upon by all consistent
Anarchists as obvious nonsense. I quote this
basic proposition. 'The natural wealth of
the world belongs to those who first take
possession of it • So much natural
wealth, remaining unpossessed, as anyone can
take possession of first, becomes absolutely
his property.'(59)
Later anarchists, like Tucker, followed Ingalls to
the letter. Writing in 1890, Tucker said:
[ L ] e t us sup p 0 sethat the Ana r ch i s t
view that occupancy and use should condition
and 1 im it landholding becomes the prevai 1 ing
view • E v ide n t I Y thenth e s e mun i c i pa lit i e s
wi 11 proceed to formulate and enforce this
view. Wha t the for mu I a wi libe noon e can
foresee••. [W]e will say that they decide to
protect no one in possession of more than ten
acres, then particular lands will be open to
those there first to claim it.(60)
197