Land is not a product of one’s labor and its limited. Therefore I believe you cannot forbid others to use land which you do not use yourself. So if you abandoned a field you previously owned, you can’t claim ownership over the piece of land beneath that field. Originally you gained ownership of the land because you used it for the field, but now the field is gone, so your ownership of the land is gone with it.
- Land is not a product of one’s labor and its limited. Therefore I believe you cannot forbid others to use land which you do not use yourself. So if you abandoned a field you previously owned, you can’t claim ownership over the piece of land beneath that field. Originally you gained ownership of the land because you used it for the field, but now the field is gone, so your ownership of the land is gone with it.
Define “use yourself”, and abandonment. What about stuff like game/nature preserves, letting a field lie fallow to recover for future crops, or a stand of trees that might take 25 years to grow to be harvested for lumber?
The problem with “only can occupy what you use” logic is that it seems that it’s supporters have a very limited view of what is “use”, and never define what true abandonment is. I can imagine that such a system would create all sorts of fake makework “projects” that allow people to retain ownership over the land to use for more long term projects. It would also have the effect of some of the more short-sighted occupants overworking the soil or resources so as to grab as much as they can in the present, for fear of loosing the title later.
Wild, unused land is of no economic value. Once you have acted upon it and put it into use, be it for a game preserve, strip mine, or housing, then it becomes economically valuable and owned. Ownership is not derived from creating something whole cloth but putting something into use. If you pick a peach off of a wild and unowned tree, that peach is certainly yours. Yet it is not a product of your labor.
I don’t think economic value has anything to do with it. We shouldn’t base rights on economic value or what other people see as valuable. Otherwise it sounds like we are trying to encourage economic activity or something of that sort. That I believe is statist thinking.
I believe you can’t own land, you can only “lease it”. Its not yours to own. To paraphrase Obama, you did not build that.
You gave good examples which I can’t answer easily. However we should remember that land is valuable, and it wouldn’t be fair to prevent someone from using it if they don’t use it themselves.
- I believe you can’t own land, you can only “lease it”. Its not yours to own.
This begs the question though, if YOU can’t own it, then who are you leasing it from? Not to put words in your mouth, but the standard answer to this is “society collectively”. Again, begs the question: if individuals can’t own it, then how did all individuals, when amassed into a nebulous society, come to own it? Furthermore, this usually leads to arguments that end up conflating the “state” with “society” and leads to a de facto ownership of all land by a political elite.
How familiar are you with David Schmidtz’s writings on the topic ?
http://www.davidschmidtz.com/sites/default/files/articles/PropertyKlosko2012_0.pdf
That’s right, you lease the land from society, that is from anyone else who wants to use the land. After all what gives you the right to exclude other people from using valuable natural resources? You gain this right only if you were the first one to use the resource yourself. But if you stopped using the resource you lose the right to exclude others from using it. I think it makes sense, don’t you think?
Stopped use of is not the same as abandoned. Abandoned I’d say yes, it returns to unowned state.
If you stop using the land for anything, but just hold it to wait until it increases in value, that should be illegal. You acquired the right to exclude others from using the land because you used it for growing vegetables, but if you stopped growing vegetables on the land, you lose this right, which was given to you in the first place on the condition that you use the land.
Eugene, you’re still talking about how an individual is “taking away” unowned lands from others, or that society “gives it to the individual to use”. I mentioned this position in my last post:
- Again, begs the question: if individuals can’t own it, then how did all individuals, when amassed into a nebulous society, come to own it?
Thoughts on that?
That’s what socialism advocates.
Because the details of the definition of abandonment will be agreed upon the people in question, e.g. the commune where the land is, and the definition surely cannot fuction in a mechanical way- e.g. they agree on 6 months non-use to constitute abandonment, and then someone comes one day every 5 months and 28 days to till the soil or similar for a day, and goes on to does so for years just to troll the people. It’s reasonable to assume that that kind of person will get perma banned by the commune.
There is not title, only “occupancy-and-use” that gives you exlusive use. Occupancy-and-use doesn’t neccessitates overworking the soil, it requalires only sanity; there would be no need for fear or stress. If your do agriculture- you till the soil normally, like you would if you had the title of ownership over the land, and no one will take that land from you.
Areas of land cannot be owned.
Putting something into use gives you exclusive use. That’s what “occupancy-and-use” principle is- exclusive use during the continous use.
It is. You have produced a “plucked peach”. You can never produce something out of nothing, every creation (of property) is mixing effort with something, with that effert removing it from the state of nature.
I’d say it’s clear that it cannot, areas of land cannot be owned at all.
This discussion is certainly entertaining me though. I’ve read his posts about the USSR and he’s just a typical Soviet apologist that prefers them over us, so you’re just wasting your time Malachi.
What’s with the idiotic statements? You’re trying to troll, what?
Individuals “own” the right to use any land just through pure physics. If you want to exclude others from using a piece of land, its a positive right. Its the right to use physical force against other people. This should not be given lightly, and I believe it is preserved only as long as you continue to use the land in question.
I don’t agree with the wording, but the principle is one that is a part of genuine socialism.
Stsoc, I’d like an answer to my question. I see no valid reason for you to be afraid of answering it.
how come those individuals get to decide who actually gets to own land, but they cant decide to sell/buy labor?
They don’t decide that.
Yes they do. You said “Because the details of the definition of abandonment will be agreed upon the people in question” meaning that as long as the rest of the coop agrees, then the individual has not abandoned the land and continues to “use” it. You explicitly made it clear that possession of land is a social construct and therefore the domain of the individuals concerned. Why are voluntary relationships different? Why does a service contract have to meet your approval when possession/use of land is not subject to your dictates?
@Groucho
exactly! What a routine! This is precious!
I have said multiple times that areas of land cannot be owned, so they surely wouldn’t decide who will own the land.
I have said nothing of the sort. I have said, multiple times, exactly the opposite, that the possession (right to exclusive use) of land can only legitimately be determined by the de facto use itself. The details of what constitutes abandonment, is it a few weeks or a few months, are to be decided by the community in which the area of land in question is, and that is not anywhere near saying that possession of land is a social contruct.
There is nothing wrong with service contracts.