KOL468 | Is Group Ownership and Co-ownership Communism?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 468. Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Co-ownership and Ownership and Punishment of Criminals Libertarian Answer Man: Joint Ownership (Co-ownership) and Future, Conditional Title Transfers Armoutidis, Who Owns Public Property? Libertarian Property Theory and the Problem of Immigration From a Twitter Space organized by @Kasimir, joined by LiquidZulu and others. I believe I was supposed to host a Zoom call at 8am this Sat. morning but I overslept (since I am dealing with a family issue) so joined this conversation late, about 90 minutes in, and chimed in sporadically. https://youtu.be/ZhiKkaJOulM Related: Libertarian Answer Man: Co-ownership and Ownership and Punishment of Criminals On “Unowned” State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession Libertarian Answer Man: Restrictive Covenants, Reserved Rights, and Copyright On easements from encircled plots of land: The Blockean Proviso Down With the Lockean Proviso Łukasz Dominiak, “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights“ LiquidZulu, Homesteading and Property Rights Dominiak, “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights” ——, Must Right-Libertarians Embrace Easements by Necessity? Update: Co-ownership is quite possible in the law. It's not especially magical or difficult. See La. Civ. Code arts 477, 797, et pass. See excerpts from Gregory W. Rome, Civil Law Property Outline & Case Briefs: Keyed to Yiannopoulos' Civil Law Property Coursebook 10th edition (2025): Co-ownership. a. Ownership in indivision is “[o]wnership of the same thing by two or more persons.” La. C. art. 797. The right of each owner bears upon the whole of the thing held in indivision. The fundamental rules of co-ownership in indivision include: Co-owners own the entire property with one Each co-owner’s share does not have to be equal. Under Louisiana law, a co-owner is prohibited from unilateral acts concerning the property except for acts of use and acts of preservation. Other acts require unanimous consent or a court order. “The use and management of the thing held in indivision is determined by agreement of all the co-owners.” La. C.C. art. 801. “When the mode of use and management of the thing held in indivision is not determined by an agreement of all the co-owners and partition is not available, a court, upon petition by a co-owner, may determine the use and ” La. C.C. art. 803. A co-owner may petition the court for an order regarding the use and manage- ment of co-owned property where the co-owners cannot agree and the property is already being offered for sale because the normal remedy — partition — is practically unavailable. Succession of Miller. “A co-owner may freely lease, alienate, or encumber his share of the thing held in indivision. The consent of all the co-owners is required for the lease, alienation, or encumbrance of the entire thing held in indivision.” La. C.C. art. 805. A co-owner may freely use the entire property for its customary purpose but may not interfere with the other co-owners’ right to use it La. C.C. art. 802. If the co-owners cannot agree on how to use the property, their remedy is partition. One co-owner may receive an injunction prohibiting another co-owner from deliberately denying her the equal and coextensive use of a part of the com- monly held property. LeBlanc v. Scurto. “A co-owner may without the concurrence of any other co-owner take necessary steps for the preservation of the thing that is held in ” La. C.C. Art. 800. Preservation implies a danger of decay, deterioration, or impending The acts should be taken to preserve a thing rather than to alter it or its eco- nomic purpose. The necessity of the acts, their sufficiency, and their proportionality to the dan- ger should be judged by an objective prudent-man standard. Acts of preservation may be taken without the consent of the other co-owners and over their objections. Acts taken under this article are taken in the actor’s own name, and not in the name of his co-owners without their consent. A co-owner may not substantially change the property or devote it to a new use without the unanimous consent of the other co-owners. A co-owner’s failure to object to an exceptional use or activity on the property after learning of it ordinarily constitutes his tacit consent to those A co-owner who makes an unsanc- tioned use of the property may be liable to the other co-owners for any damage he causes — for example, diminution of the value of the property. “Co-owners share the fruits and products of the thing held in indivision in propor- tion to their When fruits or products are produced by a co-owner, other co-owners are entitled to their shares of the fruits or products after deduction of the costs of production.” La. C.C. art. 798. But a co-owner is never liable for losses or   expenses incurred by the other co-owners in connection with activities on the land in which he has not agreed to participate. In any case, a co-owner may not charge his co-owners for his personal services in producing or gathering the income. A co-owner must pay his proportionate share of the reasonable costs for maintain- ing and preserving the property. A co-owner may seek to partition the property at any time, and agreements to the contrary are valid only under certain circumstances and for limited times. Expenses. “A co-owner who on account of the thing held in indivision has incurred necessary expenses, expenses for ordinary maintenance and repairs, or necessary man- agement expenses paid to a third person, is entitled to reimbursement from the other co-owners in proportion to their shares.” La C.C. art. 806. Necessary expenses include expenses incurred for the preservation of a thing and for the discharge of private or public burdens, other than those incurred for ordinary maintenance and repairs — e.g., property taxes and assessments, indispensable repairs and maintenance costs, litigation costs for the preservation of the property, and insurance costs. Useful expenses, which are expenses that are not needed for the preservation of a thing but enhance its value — e.g., ordinary repairs. Contrast Luxurious expenses, which are expenses made to gratify one’s personal Unjust enrichment. Article 806 does not override the doctrines of unjust enrich- ment or negotiorum gestio, and one co-owner may be able to recover the enhanced value of the thing from the others if the requirements of either doctrine are met. There is some authority to suggest the doctrine of negotio gestorum does not apply between co-owners. Some of the jurisprudence interpreting article 2297 reads it to require reim- bursement only for expenses that are both “necessary and ” But there is also jurisprudence to the contrary. Indirect rent. “If the co-owner who incurred the expenses had the enjoyment of the thing held in indivision, his reimbursement shall be reduced in proportion to the value of the enjoyment.” La. C.C. art. 806. “A co-owner is liable to his co-owner for any damage to the thing held in indivision caused by his fault.” La. C.C. art. 799. “Substantial alterations or substantial improvements to the thing held in indivision may be undertaken only with the consent of all the co-owners. When a co-owner makes sub- stantial alterations or substantial improvements consistent with the use of the property, though without the express or implied consent of his co-owners, the rights of the parties shall be determined by Article 496 [as if he were a good-faith possessor]. When a co- owner makes substantial alterations or substantial improvements inconsistent with the use of the property or in spite of the objections of his co-owners, the rights of the parties shall be determined by Article 497 [as if he were a bad-faith possessor].” C.C. art. 804. Property held by spouses under a community property regime are subject to many spe- cial rules of co-ownership.   Partition. “No one may be compelled to hold a thing in indivision with another unless the contrary has been provided by law or juridical act. Any co-owner has a right to demand partition of a thing held in Partition may be excluded by agreement for up to fifteen years, or for such other period as provided” by law. La. C.C. art. 807. Partition may be made by agreement — a conventional partition — or judicially. Update: In response to the criticism by some of co-ownership, they mention some critiques of Hoppe and Rothbard of egalitarianism. See e.g.: It's actually in Hoppes' introduction to the Ethics of Liberty. Obviously, it's a little different since it's talking about universal co-ownership and not just co-ownership, but the heart of the objection applies to both pic.twitter.com/hq2OuEMhwb — ZⒶRK (@TheLostOddity) August 18, 2025 I will quote some of the relevant material below but it suffices to observe that the problems to noted by Hoppe and Rothbard below, of egalitarianism or "universal equal and other-ownership," are simply not present when two or more people distribute rights between each other by contract. Even Rothbard acknowledges this by accepting the "bundle of rights" view of rights in his confused argument for IP rights. (( The Problem with Intellectual Property, Part III.C.2. )) If there is a clear contract between co-owners, there is no problem of everyone dying because everyone has to wait for everyone else before using a resource, for example. From Stephan Kinsella, "How We Come To Own Ourselves," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) [LFFS]: In the text above, I noted that “first use” is not the ultimate test for the “objective link” in the case of body ownership,...