"Homesteading in a circle". Dr. Walter Block's limitations on homesteading.

[ClaytonB]

But I think it is important to settle one question. The question is how you personally would go about forming an opinion on a dispute with the knowledge you have now.

Well, there are two components to the answer. The first is philosophical (what we’re doing now: philosophy of law) and the other is entrepreneurial (actually putting out a shingle as a dispute arbitrator). I think you’re asking me to give an answer to the latter with only the tools of the former, an impossibility. In other words, until there is a thriving market in dispute-resolution, there really is nothing but my speculation versus your speculation on how such a market would operate.

That being said, there have been nearly-free markets in dispute-resolution and I would direct your attention to David Friedman’s many online articles and lectures as he’s the only person I’m aware of that has done real leg-work in studying historical legal systems under conditions of greater freedom in the market of dispute-resolution. This imposes a discipline on the speculation that cannot be had any other way.

I assume you would see what the common sense morality is (as you personally perceive it) and try to see what its logical implications are for the particular circumstances.

At a high level, yes, I think that the arbitrator would be functioning as a kind of “referee” of the dispute… if someone makes an argument that is blatantly circular, he might point out that logical fallacies are not a solid basis for long-lasting legal settlements as people tend to realize later on that the terms they’ve agreed to were all based on mumbo-jumbo reasoning. Or, if someone applies a double-standard, he might point out that it is absurd to expect someone to settle a dispute on significantly different terms than you would be willing to settle the very same dispute if things were the other way around. Or, if someone goes into listing what a great person they are and what a terrible person the other party is, the arbitrator might point out that everyone praises themselves and abuses their enemies so such lists are really a waste of everyone’s time and why not let’s get down to actually settling the dispute?

I don’t see how you personally can ever pass a value judgment on any existing system unless you presume to know what common sense morality is. Or perhaps you know enough of it to oppose a state, but not enough to figure out the particulars of an anarchistic society?

Common sense morality is not a formal basis of the legal order, in my view. To reiterate, I was merely making the much weaker claim that deontological morality is not the basis of the legal order in an unhampered market (contrary to the present system that is based on deontological morality, where the commands of the State (statutes) are the highest moral commands of all).

Instead of passing a value judgment on the current system, I prefer to characterize it in terms of the health of the social order. A doctor who says “You need to go on a diet and lose weight” is not saying “Thou shalt not overindulge” or “Gluttony is an abomination to God”… he is saying that your body is unhealthy (as evidenced by its dysfunction) and that if such-and-such steps are taken, its health can be improved. The doctor can say this because he has studied the objective functions of the body, so he has criteria by which to assess dysfunction. We can do the same at the social level - though sociology is a more challenging science than medicine, that is, it is much more challenging to get scientific results of the same significance.

I think a lot of people perceive that the modern social order is dysfunctional. Unlike ordinary disease - where an individual generally knows when he is sick or the doctor can apply an objective test to determine that the individual is sick - it is very challenging to put into words precisely what is meant by asserting that the modern social order is dysfunctional. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible and that there is no objective function of the social order by which its dysfunction can be measured.

Clayton -

[DerpStatis]

@Autolykos

How is it inherently utilitarian? Even if it were, why does that mean it must be fought on that level and no other?

I didn’t mean to exclude other levels of refutation, I merely pointed out that I thought it would be sufficient to destroy it on grounds that it is utilitarian. I take this part about it being utilitarian back, given that, like you said Donuthole might have has some kind of ownership or right predating the encircling.

@Autolykos

With that said, I think Donuthole has in fact already homesteaded one or more footpaths (at least) from the land he resides on and one or more other people’s land. Indeed, because he homesteaded them (and thus took complete ownership of them), Donuthole isn’t limited to using those strips of land solely as footpaths. If Roadblock prevents Donuthole from making any use of those footpaths, he’s effectively stealing from him. Indeed, I’d say that Roadblock can’t take ownership of those strips of land without agreement from Donuthole. An easement allowing Donuthole to travel through Roadblock’s surrounding land would actually entail a diminution of Donuthole’s existing rights IMO.

…

Given what I wrote above, I think Roadblock building such a sphere would in fact violate Donuthole’s existing property rights.

I agree that Donuthole might have homesteaded something, but see my reply to Malachi above. Basically, I tend to agree with you about how this should be resolved and I point out that there is no justification to limit property rights in the way Dr. Block proposes. (Assuming we use Dr. Block’s own proposed method, rather than, say, some kind of utilitarianism). My only reservations are whether and/or how one can homestead access or easement.

[DerpStatis]

Hi Clayton,

Thanks for elaborating in such length on your view. I think I have a very good idea about what you are defending. Perhaps I might come closer to that view in the future once I have a chance of understanding it better.

However I think you are dodging my question because it might open a can of worms. In fact I was hoping it would. I really wanted you to provide your personal beliefs, rather than speculative about anything else (such as what the market might do). I’m sure you have them. For example, say “I would point out…” instead of "the arbitrator might point out… ". And I really wanted to know if homesteading might be something you would suggest the two parties consider in order to resolve a dispute.

I was also hoping not to discuss these high level issues in this post, since we are talking about method and I’d like to remain in the framework proposed by Dr. Block in order to assess his own theory. If you reject the value of such a discussion, accept this if you will as an intellectual excercise, you can consider it my selfish preference for abstract discussion.

As for your other argument it is hard for me to understand what your “formal” basis is. It seems to be a moving goal post or undefined or intentionally non-existent, but I will read up more and try to understand that.

“health of the social order” is too vague and ill-defined for my liking because you are implicitly relying on a fallacy that assumes the human body is analogous to some abstract thing like “social order”. Anyone that would claim “the social order is not healthy” has to be making some kind of normative judgment, for there is no objective measure or definition of “healthy”. And I still don’t see why you must oppose the current order rather than, say, try to improve it by small tweaks (why be a radical at all?). Even if we assume your analogy and social order is unhealthy, then I’d say so are all people. Your body is constantly fixing itself, but is never free of disorders, viruses and bacteria. That says nothing about desiring a different biological system or removing central planning from the body or not interfering with the natural biological processes.

You have not convinced me. If you will allow, I will stop here with this strain of thought and perhaps I will challenge you later when I have a better grasp of your view.

[Autolykos]

@DerpStatis

I didn’t mean to exclude other levels of refutation, I merely pointed out that I thought it would be sufficient to destroy it on grounds that it is utilitarian. I take this part about it being utilitarian back, given that, like you said Donuthole might have has some kind of ownership or right predating the encircling.

Okay, fair enough.

@DerpStatis

I agree that Donuthole might have homesteaded something, but see my reply to Malachi above. Basically, I tend to agree with you about how this should be resolved and I point out that there is no justification to limit property rights in the way Dr. Block proposes. (Assuming we use Dr. Block’s own proposed method, rather than, say, some kind of utilitarianism). My only reservations are whether and/or how one can homestead access or easement.

I’ve looked over your reply to Malachi and will reply to it after this.

As far as whether and/or how one can homestead access or easement, I don’t think those things are homesteaded specifically. That is, I think homesteading is much more general. In traversing over unowned land, Donuthole didn’t simply homestead access or easement, he homesteaded the land itself (that he traversed).

[Autolykos]

@DerpStatis

Malachi, I agree that if he has homesteaded the easement that would be the end of the discussion. Or perhaps homesteaded access rather than easement? This argument is one I am willing to pursue and it looks very favorable.

However there is no a priori reason to presume he has. In fact in the special case where Donuthole has never left his property or had any communications with others he has clearly not homesteaded any easement or access. Such would be the case if some aliens have already homesteaded the universe minus our solar system. In my view we would not have the right to demand passage through the universe and we have not homesteaded any such easement.

Maybe Donuthole was born on the property and inherited it after his parents died. If so, he still inherited the thin strips of land his parents homesteaded in making their way there. I don’t know of any other way that he could have never left the (main) property or had any communications with others.

As for aliens homesteading the universe minus our solar system, I think that’s essentially impossible. But in theory, I would agree there that no human would have a prima facie right to pass out of the solar system. A human would only have that right if the aliens granted it to him.

@DerpStatis

Here I think there are also the questions of what can be homesteaded and how, but even if you are correct about the homesteading of easement, since we have not shown (or IF it is not shown in case I am mistaken) that to be necessarily the case, I would contend that it is an issue for arbitration rather than an outright ban on the shape of property. I presume you would agree with this? If so would you agree there is nothing to be said about such limitations on property and that we can let the arbitrators figure out who homesteaded what to solve this dilemma?

For one thing, I think an outright ban on the shape of property is unnecessary. For another thing, I think arbitration would only be necessary in the event of a property dispute. I don’t see any reason to distinguish between homesteading access/easement and homesteading in general. In my opinion, whoever homesteads something owns it, plain and simple.

[DerpStatis]

Autolykos,

I am in full agreement with you. The only possible exception is that I am not convinced if a single passage is sufficient for homestead. But that’s up to the people to decide in individual cases, so I’m not worried about that.

[ClaytonB]

However I think you are dodging my question because it might open a can of worms. In fact I was hoping it would. I really wanted you to provide your personal beliefs, rather than speculative about anything else (such as what the market might do). I’m sure you have them. For example, say “I would point out…” instead of "the arbitrator might point out… ". And I really wanted to know if homesteading might be something you would suggest the two parties consider in order to resolve a dispute.

Well, yeah, in property law I think one of the first questions that would be asked is “who had it first?” But the reason it matters is that “people generally take it to matter”, not some logical/Euclidean proof that conflict is ineradicable without taking the rule of first-use as an axiom in one’s property theory. As for my personal views about “the way it oughtta be”, I’d simply direct you to click on my profile then click on the number of posts (this will lead to a listing of all my posts) and browse at will… I write a lot and you should be able to pick up the general gist pretty quickly. You can also check out my blog - which I haven’t updated in about a year.

“health of the social order” is too vague and ill-defined for my liking because you are implicitly relying on a fallacy that assumes the human body is analogous to some abstract thing like “social order”.

No, I’m not making an analogy between the human body and the social order. I’m stating that the social order has functions, which can be objectively ascertained. For example, the function of a parent with respect to a child (a mother, at least) is to feed and care for the child at least to the point where it has some respectable odds of surviving. This is not a consequence of valuation of the parent. It is not subjective. It is not relative. It is not maybe the case, it is definitely the case that this is the function of the parent. This is why females have mammaries, a body part which in no way contributes to their own survival or other selfish interests beyond seeing the survival of their children. Whenever a parent does not support his or her child in the way nature intended, we can say - as a value-free assessment - that this is a dysfunctional situation.

Anyone that would claim “the social order is not healthy” has to be making some kind of normative judgment, for there is no objective measure or definition of “healthy”.

Our very anatomy reflects a number of facts about our social functions. For example, sexual diploidy (anatomical differences between men and women) tell us that men and women have different functions in human social order. Now, granted, this is the ancestral social order (out on the African savanna) we’re speaking of… but the point still stands that the function is objective, not subjective. Alterations in our environment have made some behaviors that were dysfunctional in the ancestral environment functional in the modern environment, and vice-versa. But that does not alter the fundamental fact that there is such a thing as objective social function by which dysfunction can be measured.

And I still don’t see why you must oppose the current order rather than, say, try to improve it by small tweaks (why be a radical at all?).

How do you get a “99% monopoly” on law, down from a 100% monopoly? And, by the way, I have made concrete, non-radical suggestions in this regard at the end of my article, A Praxeological Account of Law. These are suggested, preliminary steps to ending the law monopoly… something that is inherently radical and which I cannot conceive of any non-radical way of accomplishing. There either is or is not a law monopoly. It’s a binary switch that, once thrown, will fundamentally alter the character of the entire social order. There are unnecessarily radical ways of going about this (such as re-writing the law from scratch) and I’ve provided suggestions on how to choose the least radical way to go about it.

Even if we assume your analogy and social order is unhealthy, then I’d say so are all people. Your body is constantly fixing itself, but is never free of disorders, viruses and bacteria.

But that’s just a part of homeostasis. Health is not a germicidal sanitization of the body - which, by the way, would kill you. Did you know that the majority of your body weight are cells that are not you, that is, not your DNA? No doubt, the social order will always be characterized by conflict and disagreement and the unresolved clashes of big ideas.

It’s not the fact that people argue that’s the problem. It’s the fact that many of the most basic and fundamental functions of the social order are dysfunctional. Some of this is my speculation, some of it is just simple fact and we can delve into the bowels of evolutionary psychology to start to pick apart specific dysfunctions within the social order that can be identified on that basis. But I have no patience for restricting social criticism to “the provable”, so to speak. The Status Quo is not “innocent until proven guilty”. No, there is a great deal of problems in the Status Quo that can be perceived even without scientific proof. And this is where we need real wise men - shamans, as it were - who can provide guidance in understanding where things are going wrong and steps we might take to address the issues. The science of social order will always be lagging far behind the curve because of the conservative nature of the scientific method. Science must restrict itself only to what we can “know for sure”, where those with wisdom can provide valuable, relevant feedback on a wide range of issues at the cutting edge of the evolution of social behavior.

Clayton -