Is selling your neighbors car without his consent voluntary exchange? The answer to that question answers yours.
They can complain but the rates set by a private property owner are up to him. If people don’t like it they can leave. Again this assumes that the state somehow has legitimate ownership of an entire geographical region, including other people’s pre-existing property.
It was homestead and placed into productive use. He/she did not claim ownership of someone else’s land, then violently extort wealth from the previous owners to maintain itself.
If I get “accepted” into a community where al land is held by some corporation that makes the law (call this “the City”) I’m indeed forced to follow the rules set by the City.
But if I purchase my house form the Corporation, than it has no rights to impose conditions upon my use of that house: it’s mine!
That’s why emigration is illusion: if I’m allowed To “emigrate” with my contractually acquired property (it is contractually acquired as land as the State itself considers it “private property”), than I can secede form the State along with my property. You can judge yourself as to how often that is the case.
You cannot define “the state” before defining the property regime. If some intelligent machine was explained the State before being explained what property is, it would go reboot.
pre-existing the state?
Think you mis-understood what I was saying.
You said that state’s were purchased, in order for such a geographical region to have been purchased legitimately there would have to have been no previous owners of property on that section of land. Since thats not the case in any previous state purchase all of those purchases were ill-legitimate.
Now there are philosophers of private property here that you have to go one step further with purchasing such massive portions of land. You have to prove that you are placing it into productive use, otherwise the homesteading rule would apply.
That seems completely arbitrary. How do you know that?
What constitutes “productive use?”. If I owned a woodlot in which I just enjoyed nature’s scenic beauty, and some squater moved in and claimed I wasn’t being productive, would he be right?
I’ve wondered this in the past myself. I would say the woodlot is useful as scenic beauty, as long as, I first walked there, even a jaunt along the boundary of the geography. But it couldn’t be simply looking at a whole area and claiming it. Work, such as walking, would be necessary, which is actually routine today whenever I’ve bought property, or anybody else that I’ve known to buy property. They walk the boundary with the real estate agent or what have you.
Maybe I don’t like to have paths, I like to walk in the woods without paths in scenic view. So how does anybody know that I walk there? Maybe I set up signs, but I don’t like signs in my view. Maybe I mention it to my neighbors every once in a while. They know I hunt, fish, or simply walk in these particular woods. Yet if I don’t have that many neighbors, or live a hermit type life, then who will vouch for me? Or I could simply homestead it, get a surveyor to mark down on a piece of paper the coordinates, and go to a notary or maybe its a business deal the surveyor him or her self do as part of their package deal and therefore they file it. File one copy with me, one with the surveyor. This seems to be the easiest route to take and is no different than what happens currently in the market.
What if you enjoyed viewing it from a plane?
What if there is no surveyor, or no centralized database of deeds? Wouldn’t be less circuitous, and presume less about society, to just say, “if you can take it and keep it, it’s yours”? Fabricating “rightful claims” seems as cynical about human nature as the statists. That is, the Hobbsean state of nature would result without some sort of inalienable privileges to anchor a society to.
I’d say this would depend on the data of the specific case. But generally speaking, I wouldn’t accept the claim of native Americans that they owned the whole continent since they derived spiritual utility form it, being in contact with the spirits of all forests and that kind of stuff. In practice, I believe that only some piece of the forest will be allotted to the scenic guy. There’s no way to tell in advance though.
I say no. As there is no way to measure what a person sees, it’s subjective, but to trace their steps is objective.
This is getting into understanding the entrepreneur. “If” statements of this kind, sound chicken little.[:P]
That’s homesteading. I don’t know what else your trying to say.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
So, if I bought property sight unseen, it wouldn’t be mine?
I’d say supposing the existence of something in the future is just as much an “if”.
Not if it’s already considered someone else’s property.
I’m saying bothering with property rights assumes that without them, chaos would be imminent, much like a statist saying “without the state, chaos would be imminent”.
Of course there is the risk that somebody else saw it for you and sold you the property that you’ve never seen. That’s common. Risky, but happens. But I would definitely look at the papers, want to know what it is that I’m buying, need to know if it’s legit, etc…
true.
Oh. I see. That goes without saying. Well if it’s somebody else’s property, then it can’t be homesteaded that not only violates the semantics of the word homesteaded, but the concept as well.
One need not know that property rights already do exist, but their human action will play it out. In other words, I don’t need to know that I’m walking while I walk.
This is what I was getting at in my earlier post regarding the concept of “State Purchases”.
But the meaning of “property” in that context is subjective. You may consider something your property, while I consider it mine. I don’t know how you could qualify it absolutely.
So you assume that everybody has a innate concept of property rights?
Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.
the meaning of any word is not subjective. it has an absolute meaning or else any particular word is useless and be defined as pink-mops or porchlights, when in reality I’m trying to talk about rivers. If it’s a semantics issue that an individual is concerned about indefinitely, then it is impossible for such an individual to communicate effectively.
human action
I think you are taking a leap to assume infants can conceptualize “rights”. They seem to desire possession, but they don’t seem to understand the possession of others.
What?
On order, but from what I understand about praxeology, it’s a descriptive method. Normative conclusions don’t result from applying it.
That doesn’t help.[:)]
Unless it’s a norm to apply what is descriptive.
Does a baby not cry when you take it’s pacifier from it? If the baby was not concerned with currently occupying it’s pacifier I should think it would not cry.