ironing out confusions in homesteading and 'mixing your labour'.

[AnonLLF]

Has anyone ever defined “mixing your labour” with an object? It seems vital to neo-lockean property theory.

I had a quick scan and what I seem to come across is :-

(1)changing the elements of the object means you come to own it- Rothbard & Locke

or

should we more think of it (2)as first use?

or(3) both?

Trade is not problematic in this since it is a transfer from an original appriopriater to someone else.It’s only original appriopriation that becomes confusing.

Examples:-

1. If I pick a wild rose in unowned land how do I mix my labour with it and so own it? here (1) seems insuffiecient for ownership.

2. With eminent domain whereby someone’s garden say is taken to have a shop built on it ,it seems obvious the original owner owns the land on which the shop is built.But do they own the shop too? Afterall the shop is built on the stolen land but on the otherhand the person did not steal the shop they built it legitimately? how do you solve such a dilemmna?

3. If I find a chair(and assume I know it’s unowned having been abandonded) how do I come to own it? again here (1) doesn’t seem to suffice yet (2) would work perfectly.

4. Hoppe, Kinsella,Block etc say you cannot own values in property yet I’ve noticed something somewhat contradictory.Rothbard in Law property rights and air pollution implies the first person on a piece of land or in an area has ‘homesteaded’ the right to create smoke or fumes which pass from X’s garden’s barbeque into Y’s garden.It seems to me one of these positions must go which is lucky really since homesteading a right to let fumes pass into others garden seems problematic.However this leaves us with what to do in such an example.

Can anyone help me clear up these confusions? or even point out errors?

[Snowflake]

You homestead use-rights. You don’t ever come to own anything molecular or cardinal.

So if a farmer tends to a piece of land, and is peaceful, he has the right to continue doing so. No one can mess with him. But he cannot exclude others from activities that do not impact what he’s already doing. For example, he can’t go and attack someone for broadcasting radio waves across his land, because they don’t affect farming. This will obviously be an empirical matter, and wind up being in degrees, but you get the point.

[AnonLLF]

Ok radiowaves is unavoidable but what about smoke or fumes? unavoidable too?

furthermore ,why does the prior person in an area have more right to allow smoke/fumes onto anothers land than the later person?

Oh and could you kindly consider my other questions too.Thanks Sieben.

[Snowflake]

@Scott F

Ok radiowaves is unavoidable but what about smoke or fumes? unavoidable too?

Radio waves aren’t “unavoidable”. They’re inconsequential. But they’re an example of how two people can use the same space without interfering, or having any right to interfere, with each other.

Smoke fumes, or pollution on the other hand, DOES conflict with homesteaders. For example, if you blow smoke onto farmland, you’re polluting the farmer’s air and making it more difficult for him to breath and continue what he’s doing. Or pollution that caused global warming would be aggression against practically everyone, so that kind of pollution isn’t protected by homesteading.

@Scott F

furthermore ,why does the prior person in an area have more right to allow smoke/fumes onto anothers land than the later person?

So if I’m polluting land, I’ve homesteaded the right to continue polluting it. If someone else comes along, they have to deal with it. They can’t stop me. Similarly, you can also homestead nature preserves to pre-empt this. And then once property rights are allocated via homesteading, they can be traded on the basis of owner’s morality/profit opportunities etc.

The reason you want to have a first-use theory of property rights is so that propery rights can be stable. Its a prerequisite for people even wanting to homestead in the first place. It also rewards people who homestead land that is economically valueable, so it helps create a market to discover the most economic uses for land.

[AnonLLF]

@Sieben

@Scott F

Ok radiowaves is unavoidable but what about smoke or fumes? unavoidable too?

Radio waves aren’t “unavoidable”. They’re inconsequential. But they’re an example of how two people can use the same space without interfering, or having any right to interfere, with each other.

“Smoke fumes, or pollution on the other hand, DOES conflict with homesteaders. For example, if you blow smoke onto farmland, you’re polluting the farmer’s air and making it more difficult for him to breath and continue what he’s doing. Or pollution that caused global warming would be aggression against practically everyone, so that kind of pollution isn’t protected by homesteading.”

So you don’t agree that the first person in X given area has a right to allow smoke from their land onto another person’s nearby land merely because they were first there? That’s Rothbard’s position.My argument is that ,that position still allows pollution and aggression.Possibly contracts could solve this or restitution??

@Scott F

furthermore ,why does the prior person in an area have more right to allow smoke/fumes onto anothers land than the later person?

“If someone else comes along, they have to deal with it.”

They have to deal with you polluting their owned land?

“The reason you want to have a first-use theory of property rights is so that propery rights can be stable. Its a prerequisite for people even wanting to homestead in the first place. It also rewards people who homestead land that is economically valueable, so it helps create a market to discover the most economic uses for land.”

I don’t disagree.But I think the idea that you ‘homestead the right to pollute’(as Rothbard argues) is false and allows aggression.Not only that but it’s not based on any solid grounds.On those grounds you could probably justify quite a lot.

[Snowflake]

@Scott F

So you don’t agree that the first person in X given area has a right to allow smoke from their land onto another person’s nearby land merely because they were first there? That’s Rothbard’s position.My argument is that ,that position still allows pollution and aggression.Possibly contracts could solve this or restitution??

Right I cant just find unused land and start screwing with other people from it.

Its not about the land. Its about the use-rights. They are not bound up with land or molecules.

@Scott F

They have to deal with you polluting their owned land?

They don’t own the land. No one does. People own use rights. They have to deal with the fact that I’ve homesteaded the right to pollute wherever I’m polluting, as long as it wasn’t messing with anyone else who was there before me.

@Rothbard

I don’t disagree.But I think the idea that you ‘homestead the right to pollute’(as Rothbard argues) is false and allows aggression.Not only that but it’s not based on any solid grounds.On those grounds you could probably justify quite a lot.

How is it false? How does it allow aggression? From definition, you CAN’T homestead the right to mess with other people.

It seems like you already know the answer to your questions about pollution and stuff, which means you’ll never believe in homesteading theory since you have all these preconceived notions you’re trying to balance off against it. THAT is the root of your conflict with homesteading. Articulate your ulterior philosophy and you will make a lot more progress.

[AnonLLF]

@Sieben

.

@Scott F

They have to deal with you polluting their owned land?

"They don’t own the land. No one does. "

What do you mean no one owns the land? georgism? I don’t understand what position your arguing from.I’m arguing from a neo-lockean property rights angle.

“People own use rights. They have to deal with the fact that I’ve homesteaded the right to pollute wherever I’m polluting, as long as it wasn’t messing with anyone else who was there before me.”

That seems unjust to me though.Why do you have the right to pollute with smoke onto my land because you were on your land first?

@Rothbard

I don’t disagree.But I think the idea that you ‘homestead the right to pollute’(as Rothbard argues) is false and allows aggression.Not only that but it’s not based on any solid grounds.On those grounds you could probably justify quite a lot.

“How is it false? How does it allow aggression? From definition, you CAN’T homestead the right to mess with other people.”

why is it false? because you can’t own value.what could owning the right to pollute others property mean but owning a value.Rothbard claims the first comer has the right to pollute on anothers land in the case of smoke.But this is asserting a mythic right to homestead some sort of right to pollute.

How does it allow aggression? it means if I’m there first you have to let me drift fumes/smoke on to your property.Taken further I can throw things onto your property.But we reject that so we should reject ‘right to pollute others land’ too.

“It seems like you already know the answer to your questions about pollution and stuff,”

I don’t.That’s why this problem causes me anxiety.Furthermore no one has tackled my other questions either.

“which means you’ll never believe in homesteading theory”

I already do believe in it.Why do you assume I don’t? I was merely asking about some perceived problems with it, not that I reject it.

“since you have all these preconceived notions you’re trying to balance off against it. THAT is the root of your conflict with homesteading. Articulate your ulterior philosophy and you will make a lot more progress.”

It is my belief as per homesteading and property rights that no one has the right to pollute on anothers property when they do not consent to such even if they, say moved in next door first and have been letting smoke drift onto their neighbours property for 5 years(which I think is arbritrary) for example.

[Snowflake]

@Scott F

**What do you mean no one owns the land? georgism? I don’t understand what position your arguing from.I’m arguing from a neo-lockean property rights angle.

** I’m arguing the use-rights theory of homesteading. The “mixed labor” theory is just metaphysical ad hoc nonsense.

@Scott F

**That seems unjust to me though.Why do you have the right to pollute with smoke onto my land because you were on your land first?

**

Because its the only consistent way to allocate property that doesn’t result in epic chaos. The only reason you’re having any problem with this is because you think pollution is bad. It isn’t. It allows us to produce stuff cheaper because we don’t have to deal with waste neutralization.

Anyway, why bother with homesteading rights in the first place if you’re just going to supercede your subjective concept of justice?

@Scott F

**why is it false? because you can’t own value.what could owning the right to pollute others property mean but owning a value.Rothbard claims the first comer has the right to pollute on anothers land in the case of smoke.But this is asserting a mythic right to homestead some sort of right to pollute.

**No you can’t own “price”. I.e. if something depreciates because no one wants it, you can’t “own” the original, higher price.

And you’re again misunderstanding Rothbard… you never have a right to pollute or screw with anyone who was there first. However, if you come and set up your factory and poison a lake, no one has a right to force you to stop doing so if no one was using it before. If they want to try and set up a hotel resort by the polluted lake, then tough apples. They’re going to have to pay the factory to stop.

The right to pollute, or farm, or breath is not “mythic”. Its the same as any other action. The core of use-theory is that you have a right to do actions that don’t INITIATE violence against anyone else. Which is why the “first” user can basically do whatever…

So if I punch you in the face, that’s aggression. If I start punching the air and you walk into my fist, I’m not attacking you. I have homesteaded the use of my body and that air to punch. Use theory stems from the non-aggression principle. It merely applies itself to abstract aggression (you can harm someone by messing with their actions, as well as their persons).

@Scott F

**I don’t.That’s why this problem causes me anxiety.Furthermore no one has tackled my other questions either.

**They’re rooted in the cardinal propertarian conception of homesteading. I feel no need to defend it. It is incoherant.

@Scott F

**I already do believe in it.Why do you assume I don’t? I was merely asking about some perceived problems with it, not that I reject it.

**If you’re going to sit around judging a moral theory with another moral theory, you don’t really believe in it do you? You believe in your ulterior theory of morality, which is justice or whatever…

@Scott F

**It is my belief as per homesteading and property rights that no one has the right to pollute on anothers property when they do not consent to such even if they, say moved in next door first and have been letting smoke drift onto their neighbours property for 5 years(which I think is arbritrary) for example.

**
So you think I should just be able to move anywhere, like right in front of the exhaust pipe of a coal factory, and then bomb the coal factory because they are interfering with my “homesteading rights”?

[AnonLLF]

@Sieben

@Scott F

**That seems unjust to me though.Why do you have the right to pollute with smoke onto my land because you were on your land first?

**

“Because its the only consistent way to allocate property that doesn’t result in epic chaos. The only reason you’re having any problem with this is because you think pollution is bad.”

I think it can be morally and legally yes when it trespasses or is aggressive in terms of poisoning someone or even kills them.

“It isn’t. It allows us to produce stuff cheaper because we don’t have to deal with waste neutralization.”

You always have to deal with waste.You can’t just dump it on others.

@Scott F

**why is it false? because you can’t own value.what could owning the right to pollute others property mean but owning a value.Rothbard claims the first comer has the right to pollute on anothers land in the case of smoke.But this is asserting a mythic right to homestead some sort of right to pollute.

**

“And you’re again misunderstanding Rothbard… you never have a right to pollute or screw with anyone who was there first.”

I know.I’m opposing the idea that the first person there can pollute the second persons land.

“However, if you come and set up your factory and poison a lake, no one has a right to force you to stop doing so if no one was using it before.”

True if the lake is unowned or owned by that person.

“If they want to try and set up a hotel resort by the polluted lake, then tough apples. They’re going to have to pay the factory to stop.”

True.However what i’m arguing about does not apply here.

“The right to pollute, or farm, or breath is not “mythic”. Its the same as any other action. The core of use-theory is that you have a right to do actions that don’t INITIATE violence against anyone else. Which is why the “first” user can basically do whatever…”

But I’m disputing that smoke travelling onto someone else’s property isn’t aggression.I think it could be.

" If I start punching the air and you walk into my fist, I’m not attacking you."

True.

@Scott F

**I already do believe in it.Why do you assume I don’t? I was merely asking about some perceived problems with it, not that I reject it.

**

“If you’re going to sit around judging a moral theory with another moral theory, you don’t really believe in it do you?”

I disagree.Your assuming too that they shouldn’t be intregrated.

@Scott F

**It is my belief as per homesteading and property rights that no one has the right to pollute on anothers property when they do not consent to such even if they, say moved in next door first and have been letting smoke drift onto their neighbours property for 5 years(which I think is arbritrary) for example.

**

“So you think I should just be able to move anywhere, like right in front of the exhaust pipe of a coal factory, and then bomb the coal factory because they are interfering with my “homesteading rights”?”

I never said that nor implied it.Complete straw man.I said that polluting from your property onto anothers is aggression.

[Snowflake]

SCOTT! Format your posts better. [ quote user=“Sieben” ] [ /quote ] No spaces between ['s

@Scott F

I think it can be morally and legally yes when it trespasses or is aggressive in terms of poisoning someone or even kills them.

By definition, first-users cannot be aggressive. There is no one to initiate violence against.

@Scott F

You always have to deal with waste.You can’t just dump it on others.

Yes you can dump it in a lake that is unused.

@Scott F

I know.I’m opposing the idea that the first person there can pollute the second persons land.

From hypothesis, the second person don’t own the land or have any use rights that conflict with existing users.

@Scott F

But I’m disputing that smoke travelling onto someone else’s property isn’t aggression.I think it could be.

Well it CAN be aggression… If there are two neighbors who have set up homesteads next to each other, and then one day one of them decides to start burning tons of coal and it impacts the second neighbor, its aggression and a violation of homesteading rights to the dwelling. This is different from if I start burning coal and THEN you build a house next to me, complain about the coal, and then attack me.

@Scott F

" If I start punching the air and you walk into my fist, I’m not attacking you."

True.

This is the essence of how you sort out the pollution problem.

@Scott F

I disagree.Your assuming too that they shouldn’t be intregrated.

The burden is on you to show that we can and should derive property rights from two sources of authority - homesteading and justice.

@Scott F

I never said that nor implied it.Complete straw man.I said that polluting from your property onto anothers is aggression.

The key element you are missing in all of your analysis is who came first. It distinguishes peaceful pollution from aggression.

[AnonLLF]

@Sieben

SCOTT! Format your posts better. [ quote user=“Sieben” ] [ /quote ] No spaces between ['s

my apologies.I’ll intent from now on.

@Scott F

I think it can be morally and legally yes when it trespasses or is aggressive in terms of poisoning someone or even kills them.

By definition, first-users cannot be aggressive. There is no one to initiate violence against.

True,but that’s not what I’m arguing.I’m arguing that if you pollute say in a river someone else owns it’s aggression.That was all. And even if they don’t own it I’d argue it’s immoral but that’s another story.

@Scott F

You always have to deal with waste.You can’t just dump it on others.

Yes you can dump it in a lake that is unused.

If the lake isn’t unused it’s aggression.That’s what I’m referring to here.

@Scott F

I know.I’m opposing the idea that the first person there can pollute the second persons land.

From hypothesis, the second person don’t own the land or have any use rights that conflict with existing users.

Ok.Let me clarify. A owns his garden.B owns his garden. A has bonfire which creates smoke which drifts onto B’s garden.Rothbard’s position is A’s smoke is not trespassing on B’s property and no aggression is involved MERELY because A was in that area first.I think that’s arbritrary.

@Scott F

But I’m disputing that smoke travelling onto someone else’s property isn’t aggression.I think it could be.

Well it CAN be aggression… If there are two neighbors who have set up homesteads next to each other, and then one day one of them decides to start burning tons of coal and it impacts the second neighbor, its aggression and a violation of homesteading rights to the dwelling. This is different from if I start burning coal and THEN you build a house next to me, complain about the coal, and then attack me.

I’m glad we agree in the first example you gave but why is the second different? and I never added in attacking.That would be disproportionate.

@Scott F

I never said that nor implied it.Complete straw man.I said that polluting from your property onto anothers is aggression.

The key element you are missing in all of your analysis is who came first. It distinguishes peaceful pollution from aggression.

This is conflating two things.That the first user/mixer of labour with an object comes to own it I do not dispute.What I object to is that the first person in a designated area has the right to pollute from their property onto another person’s owned property.The two are in no way comparable and I think Rothbard made an error.

[Snowflake]

@Scott F

Ok.Let me clarify. A owns his garden.B owns his garden. A has bonfire which creates smoke which drifts onto B’s garden.Rothbard’s position is A’s smoke is not trespassing on B’s property and no aggression is involved MERELY because A was in that area first.I think that’s arbritrary.

Sigh its not about being in a physical location. Physical locations have nothing to do with anything. Just focus on USE rights. So A and B are both USING their gardens, and not infringing on each other’s business. Then, A wants to start polluting. That’s a NEW USE. Even if A set up his garden first, he only homesteaded the right to GARDEN, not to pollute. B’s homesteaded use of his garden came before A tried to homestead polluting, so A can’t pollute.

If however, A got there first and started gardening AND polluting, and then B built his garden in the polluted zone, B has no case against A.