So if I build a turret, and mount a .50 cal or two inside, I have effectively claimed ownership of all of the land within the range of my gun(s)? And if someone wanted to claim ownership from me, they only have to bring in the artillery and blow up my turret, effectively removing my ability to “secure the land and maintain that security”? What exactly do you mean by “secure the land” and “maintain that security”? I do not believe that under a private property anarchy that your essential right of ownership of property is based on “defense”. If it is based solely on defense, then you don’t actually have property rights, you have “real” anarchy.
I also vaguely remember that homesteading implies durable title (from Rothbard?). If the unowned resource is mixed with labor, the mixing does not have to continue to maintain the title. I am currently in “Democracy, The God that Failed.” Hoppe claims that all land appropriated by the socialist regimes should immediately be returned to the original title owner (or heir) from whom it was appropriated (Ch 6 pg 125). If title rest solely on defense, then the original title holder lost his valid title as soon as the State appropriated his land. As I mentioned previously, if “defense” is required for durable title, then there really are no property rights.
I am also looking for suggestions on a book about the development of property rights, and the limits imposed on the use of property by the (as I see it) conflicting rights of surrounding or nearby property owners. Does anyone have a suggestion?
That would be the Rothbardian position as I understand it.
His argument is that just because a piece of land appears abandoned doesn’t necessarily mean that it is abandoned and free to homestead but that in a future libertarian society there would exist agencies that would do extensive title searches on a piece of property, kind of like what is done today, and would offer title insurance in case of a claim which would arise in the future which would invalidate the current property owner’s claim.
No need to post sentries on your property nor have to evict roving bands of anarchists who will ‘homestead’ your property while you’re off on a two week vacation to Disneyland with the family like people claim.
He also claims that any land that was appropriated in an illegal manner which the original owner or their decedents couldn’t be found is open to homesteading with the current occupier having the most valid claim as long as they weren’t the ones who were responsible for evicting the former owner.
And no, this doesn’t mean that a renter has a valid homesteading claim on the house or apartment that they are renting because a non-tenant owner doesn’t have a valid property right to the land as they will also claim.
The Ethics of Liberty has a pretty good explanation of property rights.
I’m kind of amazed that the Great Firewall lets mises.org in to corrupt the minds of the Chinese people…
My mom bought land for 38,000 and is selling it for 1.2 million[:D]. If you build a house on her land I will evict you thank you very much. Just because we are not ‘using’ all of it does not mean you can just build a house on it.
I can use my body in anyway that is not determental to others’ use of their bodies.
If I convert wilderness into something useful to humanity, I’m not infringing on anyone’s rights. If he prevents from doing so he is violating the NAP. He is charging me a fee in order to be able to use my labor!
Obviously it is possible to use wilderness, so we are assuming that the wilderness in question is actually unused.
What wilderness, the unused portion of ChaseCola’s mom’s land?
Just because some piece of land is unused at this particular point in time doesn’t mean it reverts back to wilderness.
There is too much arbitrariness to this unused land concept that y’all keep on about. If something can’t be applied at any time and in any circumstance then it isn’t a natural right and therefore invalid in the context of natural rights that you were attempting to justify it under as per my request.
No. Whats arbitrary is allowing ownership to be determined by decree, rather than by actions. Which is the only alternative to homesteading, and exactly how land ownership is done today.
If I’m Christopher Columbus and I land in Cuba I can’t say, “I own this whole island.” I can’t even say, “I own whatever part of this island isn’t already owned.”
Edit:
Your problem is you are trying to reconile the two concepts, which can’t be done. There is no “unused portion of chasecpla’s mom’s land.” There is only unused land next to chasecola’s mom’s land, some of which she happens to claim.
That is a different issue, we are not discussing PDA’s. We would purchase protection for our land seeing that we live on part of it. Even if we did not live on it, it would still be economical to purchase protection. At a cost less than our current property taxes if I might add.
Sorry, I’m really not trying to be a d.ick. I try to keep it concise in order to avoid becoming incoherent.
Without the state, the land that would be valuable enough to justify defending would also be land that is too valuable to be left idle, like land in cities.
Well, now, I’m sure you could think of some utterly unreasonable circumstance based on gaps in any reasonably brief statement that make a position seem ridiculous. The point is, there are ways to keep a clear yard that reasonable people can expect.
I never said it was based solely on defense. I also reject the idea of property rights, in the absolutist sense posited by Rothbard et al. For instance (this example is not original to me, but I can’t remember who it was that came up with it), if you are the first to mine a mountain, fine. I can’t do anything to interfere with that, and you have claim to the mining rights therein for as long as you excercise them. However, inasmuch as they do not interfere with your current use, I ought to be able to graze my alpacas on the side of the mountain, and you ought not be able to interfere with me.
As we don’t know the circumstances behind this claim it is pure speculation.
If the land has never been used then you may have a valid argument, it was never homesteaded, but if it were put into production at some time in the past then you introduce the arbitrariness I was talking about.
How long is land to be left fallow before it becomes wilderness again? One growing season, one year, two, ten, fifty…you can’t make a universally valid rule on this issue therefore it is an invalid concept under a natural rights ethic. I recall from a past discussion on this topic that it was acceptable to let the land rest for a year in order to not destroy its usefulness but is two years also acceptable? How about an unimproved border around cropland that serves to keep the insect infestations in check as is the current state of the art? Or a buffer zone upwind of an airport for noise abatement and to keep emergency landings from happening in someone’s kitchen?
The only way this gets turned into a false dichotomy is when you try to introduce a homesteading claim onto non-abandonded land where you end up with two seperate claims to the same plot of land which would require someone making a value judgement as to which one is valid.
I had purposefully avoided talking about abandoned land. Perhaps I was vague, when I said unused wilderness I meant never homesteaded(though I suppose it could include land thats returned to its natural state.)
The outcome of these particulars have no effect on the validity of the concept as a whole. Perhaps they constitute use, perhaps not. But that would not change the fact that people can not prevent others from homesteading land that is not yet homesteaded.
But the answer is that any person could use these border lands in any way that does not prevent them from fulfilling their original function.
Rothbard, who was just a strong a believer of homesteading as I, believed that once labor was mixed with land then it was always property of that person. Any who added to the land thinking it was abandoned, lost their labor if the owner returned to claim the land.
But what of nature that is homestead but is never actually transformed by the labor? Radio Spectrum, for example. I think the durability of the homestead must depend upon the durability of the type of use.
The problem that arises with this statement is the subjective value of use. I may be tending the trees on this “unused” land - mixing my labor with them so that in time they will be worth more as lumber. If you deem that from your perspective a house is more immediately valuable to you, then build a house on the same land where I am growing trees, who has the strongest claim? What about if I am farming corn? Surely building a house is more valuable than having corn. Your subjective evaluation may deem that my field is unimproved, and that you can homestead there.
And in disagreement on most other aspects of the situation. For instance, if you stopped mining the land, I should soon have the right to try mining it myself, with or without your permission. After all, my use does not interfere with your intended action. You intend not to mine the land; I do not force you to. However, there is no reason (“mixing with labor” [then bake for 2 hours at 350], whatever the hell that actually means, aside) to think that you have any right to the land other than you were using it first. You didn’t make it. Nor, indeed, is your labor what will liberate further mineral wealth from it. You gained the benefit of opening the mine: first use of the materials therein.
As for fallow land, leaving land fallow is actually not very necessary. Farming legumes actually restores soils rather than depleting them, for instance. You want to let land lie fallow because you want to preserve and restore it. My starving family is more important than the dirt you think you have claim to when you’re not using it. Further, you’re not using it; you intent is not to use it, and I don’t force you to. Nor ought you force me not to.