Permacapitalism

• Capitalism is complimentary with permaculture, given John Locke's definition of property.
• Every person is their own property.
• Non-person property must be improved and maintained to earn and keep title.
• Spoiled and excess properties go back to nature or are given as gifts.

Often, it seems, permaculture proponents are against capitalism and the so called "free market", claiming that it is inherently destructive, extractative, and unequal. On the other hand, many market advocates see their perceived antithesis of socialism in permaculture and the gift economy. With careful observation and understanding, it can be shown that this divide is a harmful and unnecessary false dichotomy.

Since these terms are very politically loaded, and often misunderstood, it is best to start with definitions. In capitalism, property is mostly owned by individuals and private parties. In socialism, property is mostly owned by society or the community. They are both economic systems, mainly differing in how they deal with "property." But what is the definition of property? It turns out that this makes all the difference.

John Locke, one of the founding thinkers of capitalism, gives a basic definition in his work Two Treatises of Government.

His labour hath taken it out of the hands of Nature where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

This definition is pretty good, and most of us would probably not argue with it, to the extent that it accurately represents events. Unfortunately, the issue is more complex. Locke recognizes this, and provides a much better and more nuanced definition in the full reading. One example of misunderstanding has been around the concept of labour.

every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

Very clearly, this precludes slavery, serfdom and other forms of person ownership. It also, however, means something deeper in our context of private vs. social ownership. If one agrees with Locke that every person's labor is their own property, then we must admit the capitalist view as it relates to people and labor. Society and the community do not, for the most part, have rights over a person or that person's labor.

While this may seem obvious, it is not the common practice today, like it wasn't in Locke's time. What is compulsory military or other service? What is an income tax, if not the improper seizure of a person's labor, and therefore their property? What are regulations restricting the activities of people, whether recreationally or professionally? These are infringements on a person's most intimate property, i.e. their freedom. I don't believe that many permaculturists would agree to compulsory community ownership of their self or their labor. After all, it is each individual who must creatively apply the principles of permaculture to their surroundings.

With the special case of labor accounted for, we can go back to the original definition of mixing labor with nature. Locke makes a very important distinction, which makes all the difference in sustainability and equality.

As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in. Whatever is beyond this is more than his share, and belongs to others.

So there is a natural limit to property ownership, and furthermore a natural responsibility of the owner to maintain the property against "spoiling." Finally, that which is beyond a person's ability to use and maintain is excess, to be given to others, This gives a capitalist basis for the gift economy. These limitations are not given nearly enough weight today, with some rare exceptions like squatters rights. Consider Locke's definition as it relates to land.

As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.

So to consider land as being the property of a person, that person must improve it, and constantly protect that improved land from spoiling. What, however, is improvement? What is spoiling? These concepts could easily be defined in permaculture and ecological terms to be based on soil quality, biodiversity, and other measurable increases in capacity and yield. If, then, a person in a permacapitalist society was to let their land become poisoned, neglected, or less diverse, it could be rightly considered to no longer be theirs. If one person pollutes another's land, they could be sued for damage to the property of the other. Finally, any person could claim natural or neglected land by demonstrably improving and maintaining it.

Now we have permaculture compatible property definitions for labor and land, and we see that application of these definitions would protect the rights of both people and other organisms, as well as whole ecosystems. What about efficiency, though? Do markets inherently create long, inefficient supply chains, or cyclical consumption? I believe that these negative effects are a result of poor understanding of intellectual property. It is largely the hoarding of trade and industrial secrets which create the incentive for inefficiency.

Take the principles of Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle, in the context of a closed source (proprietary) machine. When a part of that machine breaks, there are only two options: throw the whole machine away, or send it back to the manufacturer for repair. You cannot repair it yourself, because the manufacturer refuses to share the designs. Nor can a local industrial plant repair it, because they do not have the part, which was designed by the original manufacturer to ensure their proprietary rights, and vendor lock-in. This transgression is an attempt of the manufacturer to claim inappropriate property rights over far more than they can use, i.e. all machines, not just their own. If all technology was open source (shared), anything would be repairable by a local expert, and everything would be designed by the users to maximize functionality, and maintainability. Supply chains would be shortened, and waste would be reduced.

Capitalism is misunderstood, and misapplied in today's world. Concepts like intellectual property, fractional reserve banking, fiat money, securities and corporate personhood distort and abuse the natural limitations of spoilage, and excess. Let's observe human interactions, taking what is natural, healthy and beneficial. Property law and the free market economy need to be weeded and fertilized, not slashed and burned.