So since you consider the state borders not legitimate, will you also object to distributing the lands to the citizens? Do you think the 300 million Americans can’t be the rightful owners of all the territory inside the United States borders?
only if they came on your property (keep in mind that I don’t believe in absolute land ownership) without your approval of some kind. Anyway, I can’t see anywhere a real world example of such issue. It’s kinda as useless as life-boat situations…
House is yours because you use it, it has clear boundaries etc. Land is yours only if you use it (homesteading etc.), but USA (or whole America continent) is not yours, just like Columbus couldn’t have claimed whole continent just because he first homsteaded a little tiny piece of it.
not directed to me, but I will answer to the second question.
They can. But if it’s possible to find the previous legitimate owner or his heirs… then they are fucked.
That is your opinion on the morality of the dillemma.
I am telling you that I disagree with it. I believe that the birth of NEW people who did not choose to enter your property mystically trumps your conception of property rights and what constitutes tresspassing. I believe those new people have every moral right to squat on your land as they see fit and to defend with deadly force their intentions to do so.
Here we are with two different opinions on the morality of the matter. If you are looking for Austiran economics or libertarian theory or science or any universally objective truth to prove one of us right and the other wrong, you will never find it because it does not exist. We are disputing over a different set of preferences.
We could be practical, though. We could look at you having to expend resources to defend yourself against the constant random threat of an insurrection from people who believe as I do.
Morally, no. Practically, they would conceivably need to pay rent if you forced them to do so but at the same time, you would have to pay for evicting them if they refused which could get very expensive.
You would be wise to craft your rental contract and to get insurance on your investment in such ways as to cover the costs of what you want. My guess is that if you really put your mind to it, as a libertarian land-owner, you probably would not care as much for such details as long as the money kept coming in. You would probably stick to leases which would expire each year (or maybe every nine months? 
and force every occupant – noew or old, what does it matter? – to start afresh.
I realize that my reply seems to run counter to the situation laid out by the OP but that is only because your analogy is not analogous enough. There is nothing logically wrong with me making exceptions to rules.
Maybe.
However, maybe God wants us all to intuitively share the land. Maybe God created man and nature such that people who believe in such strict objective rules governing the rightful ownership of property and whether children born on their land could rightfully be evicted if they did not pay rent (or whatever else we are trying to hypothetically figure out) to be forever lost in chaotic mental contortions of morality that see no end. Whereas people who intuitively believe that the Earth’s bounty should be shared have a more peaceful walk towards freedom. Just a thought.
However, maybe God wants us all to intuitively share the land.
Whee, let’s introduce God and throw all rationalization out the window because God said this is what we must do and we must do it!! Now, I’m a believing Christian, but I see a problem whenever God is brought into politics, as I see the argument like this:
Me: We should do A B and C because they are logical and follow from these axioms
You: But God said we shouldn’t do B and C, only A and D
Me: Well, then, I guess we’ve gotta do what you say since you’re God’s prophet… : |
Unless God tells me this or we have a prophet come down and tell us, I like to stick to a more earthly view on political theory.
And intuitively sharing the land implies no real property rights. You argue that newly born people on other people’s property have the moral-legal right to claim people’s property. But why do you limit this power to only newly born people? Heck, why not anyone ever? Screw property altogether, let everyone do whatever as long as they don’t violate self-ownership!
Now, this argument I cannot answer, as I have not read up on property rights. And yes, hashem, I will read that article you so consistently propose 
Is this an appeal to force or an appeal to (adverse) consequences?
Same questions apply here.
you would have to pay for evicting them
Is this in line with some geolibertarian beliefs?
Autolykos,
What do you mean by an appeal?
I am not asking anybody to do anything other than to recongize that if they poke a sleeping bear with a stick, they should expect the bear to wake up and attack.
I am just stating what is a real hypothetical possibility in the hypothetical situation spelled out in the OP. If I was in the shoes of the hypothetical property owner in question, I would bet that none of these tenants would be too pleased with how I treated them and I would expect them to demonstrate their displeasure with force.
As far as I am concerned, the nature of the hypothetical land-lord as described in the OP is treating people like animals and what I describe is how animals behave.
Then you have a poor understanding of your Christian faith of which you profess and of any libertarian faith you may possibly profess. There is nothing on this earth that will reveal moral truths.
For most of my adult life, I’ve been a renter. Would you say that I’ve necessarily been treated like an animal there?
Did you enjoy it?
I preferred it to the alternatives - otherwise I wouldn’t have rented at all, now would I?
But you were forced to rent!
MaikU, if the United States government can distribute all empty American lands to the 300 million American citizens, who else can contend? These are empty lands.
If they’re empty, gasp, no one homesteaded them! No one actually put them to use. So there is a problem. Just like the US can’t give away the moon, for example.
But they were homesteaded because fences were errected in all the borders of the U.S.
That’s not a complete condition for homesteading. There must also be a use of the land. Otherwise you can put a fence around the earth going through the prime meridian and argue that both sides of the fence are yours Ok, that’s a bit silly, but fencing off without use is not homesteading.
The fence example is wrong since parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.However if I fence a virgin land that no one cares for, then I do believe its just. After all no one claims the land besides me.
-
They didn’t fence it. People just de-facto built their own fences so that there is a fence there by chance.
-
They never used the land.
-
The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences, so it was homesteaded by someone.
-
Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading. You can homestead land to build a mall 5 years later for instance.
parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.
And a lot of parts don’t. Now what?
The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences
Proof?
Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading.
At the very least intention to use the land. Even if the Ultimate Fence you claim exists around the US, it was not created to homestead the land.