No it can’t. If ex hypothesi it is not a legitimate owner itself it can do nothing to stop anyone else from expropriating it that would be legitimate. The fact that it “can” as a matter of practicality would then be irrelevant, if you granted that prior premise. It’d be optimal if it were done in an organised fashion that led to as few injustices as possible, but if no such solution is retrievable, the state has no argument against “its” holdings being stripped away from it.
You quoted me out of context. I didn’t say the state can “hinder privatization.” I said the problem (entrapment) can. Look it up again. And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn’t get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can’t be found).
The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it.
Unowned property is open for homesteading, not property whose owner you don’t know. If that was the case, people in a libertarian society would run into property conflicts on a daily basis.
So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you’re in the wrong zone? I’m not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you’re accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I’m not sure about this part of libertarian law.
You also risk loosing your investment. Whatever labour and resources you put in maintenance or improvement of this property.
But it seems obvious that this is correct. Imagine finding what appears a stray dog. Do you need to ‘prove’ that this is a stray before you can adopt it? And to whom would you even present this ‘proof’?
It may be my personal error in interpretation but I’m finding it hard to narrow the scope of your question. We are only speaking of homesteading and land acquisition as it applies to the case of entrapment correct?
If so, we can further narrow our scope to situations where title to land ownership is not traceable. Thus, we are looking at situations where documentation cannot be ascertained, or in essence, when the state is eliminated how do you divide the land?
There are many possibilities to do this, which we can discuss after it is submitted that this is indeed what you are referring to but first we must accept that we are only discussing efficiency, not ethics. If Bill Gates out bids everyone for the highways this is no less equitable then it being distributed to the poor (though it may be more or less efficient).
Good point. So I guess that the current state roads are open for homesteading at least for the time being (until the original owners come and show proof of their ownership).
Yes, my question was first with regard to the possibility of homesteading in absence of ownership documentation, and then with regard to division if homesteading under such circumstances is possible. What I can understand from our discussions is that you are free to homestead any property (land in our case) at your own risk, and should be recognized as a legitimate homesteader until the rightful owner comes and presents valid ownership documentation for the land. I’m a little bit confused though, why isn’t this a matter of ethics but efficiency? I think that deciding who of those millions of homesteaders (both taxpayers and users) deserve what part of the road is a matter of ethics rather than efficiency.
I’m open to criticism about the ethical stance, but here is my opinion. Since the land we are discussing is currently under government control, any acquisition to the private sector would free up resources being devoted to it. Thus, people in the southern part of the state will be free from paying for roads in the northern part of the state (vice versa). Who becomes the homesteader (new title holder) is irrelevant to the concern of ethics since the current state of ownership is unethical. Therefore, we only need to decide an efficient way of title transfer.
For example, the state could disappear, leaving the distribution of the land to the first person to mix land-and-labor or proves ownership.
A better way to divide would be for individuals to prove how much money they have invested into it and they would need to be compensated by the buyer. If you make 100,000 a year and .05% of your total wealth is dedicated to state roads you could do some math in terms of a percentage share of each road (like a stock), etc
But that is not even the problem here, the problem is that there are multiple claimants to the same state-owned property, and he wants to add to these hypothetical absentees.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, for the would-be trespasser to be guilty of trespass, the owner must prove ownership. The burden of proof will always be on the owner.
OK, so I guess the roads are open for homesteading and they have been homesteaded all these years by people who paid and used them. Thus now it’s a question of dividing the fair share to each of them. Let’s assume that is done and all the owners decided to sell their parts to one entrepreneur who wants to operate the entire road. Now we are back to the main question: What happens to people who have only one exit (through this road) and are charged exorbitant prices? Shall we simply accept it as a disadvantage for them due to road owner’s exercise of property rights, or is there a direct or indirect solution to this problem? (Please exclude ideas already offered above)