Again, a ‘creation’ is most often an intelligent arrangement of existing material for a set purpose.
Land that has been labored on for X purpose fits this description.
Eugene = Anenome?
No. I’m arguing against his point :\
So if you work in a foundry you can take the castings you cast home, because you freaking made them!
I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. People buy cheap land from farmers to develop all the time.
Did you also own the raw materials of whatever you “created”?
I think JJ’s questions are for Eugene. I think JJ has a pretty good idea of what those words mean to him. I think he wants to know what they mean to Eugene.
I was responding to this by Eugene with that post:
“If you created an object, I believe this justifies your use of force against other people in case they use the object without your permission.”
JJ was responding to that as well. I wasn’t trying to be part of their conversation at all. I was replying to Eugene.
It looked like you were responding to JJ as you replied to his post. My mistake.
Eugene,
Land being initially unowned, precisely until someone uses it for something. You lose your right to walk across it as soon as I homestead it. Or, rather, you never had a right to walk across it in the first place. Talk of “rights” to use unowned property is a mistake, it just makes no sense. When the land is unowned, no one has any right to do anything with it. Rights only enter into the picture when property enters into the picture. Incidentally, I think this might be an important part of the entire “geolibertarian” confusion: they think that homesteading takes away people’s preexisting rights to use unowned resources (and hence compensation is owed). But this is a mistake, as I said, and I think it’s based on the fact that in English our way of expressing that there are no rights in question at all (you have no right to…) is the same as our way of expressing that you don’t have a right to do something because someone else does. See what I’m saying? Again, your rights to use the land aren’t being taken away by me homesteading it, you had none - and neither did I until I homesteaded it.
The land was unowned before it was homesteaded, the person who homesteads the land is not violating anyone’s property rights, and owes no one compensation.
Yes, the justification is that I own it. And I own it because I homesteaded it…?
No one creates anything, we only transform one thing into another thing. I transforms a raw piece of land into a cultivated field as I transform a tree into a table - same thing.
Why? How did these other people acquire a right to use the materials?
What rights? How did they acquire these rights?
The use of force to prevent others from using your property is the essence of property - are you objecting to property altogether, or only to homesteading as a manner of acquiring it, or only to homesteading in the case of land?
Yes, you only homestead something by using it, not by merely claiming it.
I think homesteading is a “really really good” justification. It makes no difference whether you’re homesteading a little patch of dirt or thousands of acres - you use it, you own it.
Define “need.” Who decides how much they need, and how much I have to leave for them?