Homesteading: Axiom or Principle?

[Brainpolice]

That then becomes somewhat semantical, not a technicality worth getting hung up on IMHO.

I agree, but that particular point of contention is not the thrust of what I’ve been argueing about in this thread. But the semantic issue here is not completely irrelevant, in that it is certainly confusion-creating to use a term we normally use in the context of original appropriation to refer to scenarios that are far from original appropriation. Talk of “the state of nature” and “product of my labor” makes no sense here.

[nirgrahamUK]

homesteading refers to bringing the physical object under the umbrella of private property.

an owned thing that is abandoned is no longer under that umbrella, hence it is proper to speak of homesteading it a second time

[Solid_Choke]

@geniusiknowit

Then is nothing axiomatic?

Humans Act.

The action axiom seems somewhat vague. Do humans act all of the time? Some of the time? All humans, or only most humans? In its strongest sense, it seems questionable:

For all x, if x is human, then x acts at all points in time.

Is that really self-evident? What would Mises say is wrong with this formulation or would he agree?

[nirgrahamUK]

No Solidchoke, dead humans don’t act at all

[Solid_Choke]

No Solidchoke, dead humans don’t act at all

If that is the case, then “humans act” isn’t strictly true (unless you define “human” so that dead people don’t apply).

I get how self-ownership is axiomatic. I don’t get how homesteading is axiomatic, yet I often hear it referred to as the “homesteading axiom” rather than the “homesteading principle.” Is this it an axiom, or are some libertarians trying to prove too much?

Some libertarians are trying to prove too much. They are accepting the burden of proof, when they should not. This is why they get into these pointless debates about axioms and first principles. Why should someone NOT acquire new property? Does it violate a convention against torts? No. Unless someone provides a good answer to that first question, there is no point in trying to “justify” acquiring property.

We don’t need a justification for breathing in air. We don’t need the permission of some axiom in order to breath in the air around us. The burden is on those who would deny that it is just for us to breath in air to demonstrate why we should not.

[nirgrahamUK]

You can read the book ‘Human Action’ if you want to know all about it.

Mises doesn’t say in it the phrase ‘Humans Act’…

He explains that praxeology is the study of / science of human action.

If you don’t think that this maps to anything in reality then you are wrong.

[Solid_Choke]

If you don’t think that this maps to anything in reality then you are wrong.

I do think that human action maps to reality, but there is reality outside of action. If this is true, then a complete social science would eventually have to go beyond praxeology. Praxeology would have to become a subset of social science which would be a subset of biology.

[filc]

@Solid_Choke

It do think that human action maps to reality, but there is reality outside of action. If this is true, then a complete social science would eventually have to go beyond praxeology.

Incorrect, because the things that don’t have to do with human action have nothing to do with economics, catallactics, or praxeology. So it’s not worth mentioning in the context of an economic/philosophical debate.

[Autolykos]

@Brainpolice

I definitely understand that it’s relevance is supposed to do with how things have been aquired in the past, as a normative standard of legitimacy. But I don’t see what “homesteading” could possibly mean other than original appropriation of land in either a colonial or survivalist context. If we’re talking about how something becomes property in the first place, then we’re talking about a scenario prior to all transformation and use - which the crude and somewhat outdated examples that come to mind are the best approximations of.

Well, again, you’re using a different definition of “homesteading”. The thing is, all definitions are arbitrary. I can define “homesteading” to mean “the color of the sky”, for example. Your definition of “homesteading” isn’t right or wrong compared to mine – it’s just different.

That said, “homesteading” is perhaps not the best term to use, given its derivation from “homestead”, which (etymologically speaking) has a strong connotation with “land”. I guess it’s a question of how easily/well one can recognize and appreciate the metaphoric use with non-land objects.

@Brainpolice

Indeed, essentially all of Rothbard’s own examples in his work are fairly primitive, non-urban examples that make the most sense in an 18th century-and-before context. Since Locke wrote during this period, this kind of makes sense but raises the question of its contemporary relevancy. In a context in which this legitimacy test largely cannot possibly apply, as exchanges and transformations ensue into the future to the point where “original ownership” either is not tracable or ceases to be relevant, it seems odd to insist on inquiring about origins.

I would imagine that Rothbard’s examples were set up that way because the concept is simpler to understand that way. Maybe he should’ve also elucidated how his concept of “homesteading” applies to a modern urban(e) environment.

Regarding your comment about the “legitimacy test”, I think the point is still to explain the initial process by which something can be legitimately owned (according to Rothbard’s own ethical system). Does this make sense? If not, are you familiar with either recursion or mathematical induction?

@Brainpolice

For sure, there are completely untouched areas of land in the west that could be “homesteaded”, but I don’t see why most people would be interested in such land unless they were already rich enough to seriously develope something on it or if they were willing to give up the benefits of urban commerce to start a more “self-sufficient” lifestyle that requires them to sacrifice the ease of access to resources that an urban lifestyle would grant them.

To be honest, I don’t think any of that is/was intended by Rothbardian libertarians or Rothbard himself. Again, I think the point was to take the readily understood process of turning a piece of virgin land into a homestead (colloquial usage of “homesteading”) and extending it to cover the process of coming to legitimately own something that was previously unowned.