So I did this as a youtube video but I figured I’d post it here
The world we interact with is one where just about everything that could be homesteaded already is. So it can be difficult to understand from where we derive property rights.
To demonstrate the ethical norm from which I derive my conception of property rights we shall answer the following question: Why do the biological parents get the initial claim to parenting rights? It is because they produced the child. So the ethical norm that we derive from this goes as follows: the producer is more justified in controlling something then the nonproducer.
Since there is no philosophical way to measure different contributions to production and because any subsequent contributions to production would require the permission of the first producer, the initial producer has rights until they abandon or transfer them. What do these rights exactly entail? Let’s continue with our previous example, someone kidnaps an infant who is not harmed in the kidnaping and is indifferent to it, why is this a violation of parenting rights? It is a violation because the kidnaper is excluding the parents from rearing their child. The parents need not prove that the kidnaper was harming the child only that without permission the kidnaper was keeping their child away from them.
We shall now confine our examination of property rights to actual property because the sentience and quasi-sovereignty of children will only complicate matters. So far we have established that the initial producer of a good ought not be excluded from their good. From now on we shall refer to the initial producer or whoever the producer has transfered the good to as the owner.
We live in a world of scarcity which means that one person cannot use a good without, to some degree, excluding someone else from the good. Damaging, consuming, moving, ware and tare, and being in the way of using a good constitute excluding the owner. In order to prevent being excluded from his scarce good the owner must exclude others from it.
Since the owner has a legitimate right to not be excluded from his property, what would be the point of having a right and then not having the right to defend that right. This is how the use of force is justified. However if one must use force it must be because the violator has already refused when asked and even then they should use as little force as possible to protect their property. The burden of proof is on the owner, he needs to be able to show how the violator was somehow acting to exclude the owner.
This regime of property rights would not have intellectual property because you can use an idea or design without excluding others from using it. Also trespass laws would be largely abolished there would only be vandalism and obstruction(getting in the way).
How can one own nature? We transform things, the only non arbitrary way to distinguish creation from destruction is functionality of the thing being created or destroyed. In the sphere of praxeology nature which man has yet to purposefully interact with serves no function. So if there is un-owned nature all you have to do is transform it in some way or exploit it for some purpose and you are already more of a producer then anyone else, this is the concept of homesteading.
There are many aspects of homesteading that are largely subjective; things such as what constitutes “mixing your labor with it”, what constitutes abandonment and what should the technological units be? Law in the United States has established the technological unit of nature as areas on the ground. In a society of market anarchy it would be up to common law to establish the answers to these questions.
Here’s the youtube video if you want to comment there or rate it or whatever