Going along the thought pattern of Natural Law and thus natural property ownership, the idea is based on an individual owns the land as long as that individual has labored on the land. First laborer upon virgin land, then true owner. Here’s the scenario:
An individual comes across virgin land, 10 acres we’ll say, and the individual picks up all the dead branches and cuts up some dead trees for firewood. This has become the source of firewood for the individual over the years. He only goes back to pick up dead branches laying on the earth or cuts up the dead trees that have fallen. There is not much sign that he does this aside from the small bits and pieces of wood that might be found if you root around in the leaves left over from him cutting up the wood to bring back to the house.
Now somebody comes along and doesn’t notice that the land has been worked upon. It’s not obvious for the wood was from dead trees so no stumps or other sign of human labor around. This newbie tries to cut down all the trees and build a house. The firewood gatherer comes back and argues that this is where he gets his firewood. This is his families only source of fuel and thus heat as well during cold winters. There are no other patches of woods this close around. Horse and cow farms encircle along with a road that passes through this area. Remember the firewood gatherer only extracts dead trees or branches or if alive they have only naturally fallen.
Is it possible for the firewood gatherer to win this argument based on natural property or in other words property rights in a community that honors such arguments?
I think he modified the land by taking out the trees that were dead or fallen over even though still alive. They were apart of that land and now they aren’t. Modification.
I think this has ramifications in opening up the concept of what a free market is. For instance, what about a hunting and gathering culture. To kill off their food supply, such as buffalo for instance to use a historical event. I don’t think any one society could monopolize the buffalo and coerce people out of that historical option of natural property. People hunting the buffalo also modified the land. The buffalo are apart of the land and when they kill them, they thus changed the numbers of buffalo and their hoof prints upon the land decreased if we need to think with such subtly. I don’t think this is about quantity of use, more impact compared to less impact. Labor is involved in each of these. These are clearly issues of survival. The free market is not just about Wal-Mart. I like Wal-Mart in comparison to State coercion. I like the option of Wal-Mart. But I also like the option to freely be able to farm the land or hunt the land. I don’t think certain types of cultures need to monopolize the definition of natural property and the free market. It is as you said, about modification and labor.
I don’t know if your question is a off-topic or not. I mean, how is the blueness of the sky, clearly something having to do with the sun, somehow connected to the untouched sky? Is there something in this question I’m supposed to notice specifically?
If a people hunt buffalo or deer, then…:
What does this have to do with the natural ownership rights to a herd of buffalo by a people? Not that they own all the buffalo for it is impossible to say which part of the herd is theirs I think. But it is reasonably easy to see these buffalo are naturally their property to hunt. The buffalo herd is dynamic so at any one point these hunters can’t single out any individual buffalo and say it is his or hers. That’s the same as trying to predict which cow I will end up buying at the store next year from the hundreds of cattle farms or ranches from which ever country they will come from on their way to my plate. Yet obviously by historical showing (they are known to hunt buffalo), then they have a claim to hunt these buffalo. And once they hunt and kill an individual buffalo, then they can now for certainty point out the buffalo that is theirs to take. This does not exclude anybody from hunting the buffalo. At no one point can anybody with certainty point out which buffalo is theirs by any labor they partake of in the hunt or any other labor. Yet the natural property of buffalo being theirs is known by history and by history what is meant, is, it can be evidenced that these people hunt buffalo. They can show fur, bones, or even stored meat.
Come to think of it, this question of yours goes in all kinds of directions. First you say “untouched land”, but then you say buffalo graze, so, they touch the land. It’s the question I dispute. It may not be your logic, but clearly this question needs clarified so I can understand your logic.
Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted you, but I though you were arguing that various hunter-gather societies homesteaded the land by hunting the buffalo that grazed upon it. As you specifically said that they (the buffalo) were a part of the land.
Thank you! Now I understand better on what your asking.[:)]
I’m not saying the buffalo hunter society homesteaded the land. Of course though they have homesteaded the land that they lodge upon and other structures of some sort. I am saying though they have a claim to hunting buffalo. So that would mean the buffalo would need enough land to be and do what buffalo do so their claim to buffalo hunting is honored. This would go for deer hunting and to historically used fishing places (rivers, lakes, or oceans). Again not to the whole river or whole lake, but to where they have historically (traditionally is another word) placed their nets or speared. I know lobstering off the coast of Maine is homesteaded by claims. A lobster hunter with his boat motors out to a claim used each year. It is his or hers by historic use (tradition). The law recognizes these claims by lobstermen.
So buffalo are not part of the land, perhaps I just took it too literally.
Basically, what your saying is similar to Rod. Long’s ideas of public property:
Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it’s hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time, the way is cleared and a path forms—not through any centrally coordinated effort, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking that way day after day.
The cleared path is the product of labor—not any individual’s labor, but of all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.
Yes, unless doing so interferes with villagers’ ability to use the path. This is because simply using the path does not damage it in any way (in fact, it helps keep the path clear). The only reason why a villager would be right in preventing an outsider from using the path would be if the outsider’s action makes it impossible for the villager to exercise his/her property right.
Confusion arises when we try to assign every piece of land to a particular owner. At the most basic level, what is owned is not physical objects, but property rights to a category of actions. For a simple example, Alice might own the right to pick the fruit from a certain grove of apple trees, while Bob owns the right to harvest the mistletoe that grows around them. When we say “Alice owns this apple,” we really mean this as an abbreviation for “Alice owns the right to bite, peel, cut, bury… this apple.” In the case of the gold miner, a guy who digs up some gold has the right to continue mining gold from the place where he started doing so. People can continue using the surface of the land because this does not conflict with mining gold beneath it.
Now, for the matter of the firewood. The primary source of dispute is the fact that the newbie does not know that the forest is being used by someone else as a source of firewood. I think we can agree that if the newbie did know this, then it would be unethical for them to cut down the trees, because doing so interferes with the gatherer’s previously homesteaded right to gather firewood. The question then comes down to this: On whom rests the burden of ensuring that the newbie knows this? Does the newbie have a responsibility to find out before cutting it down if anyone else is using the forest? Or does the firewood gatherer have a responsibility to put up a sign saying that the forest is being used for firewood? The answer to this question will depend on the larger context of the situation. If it is obvious that there are people living in the area around the forest, then it would be irresponsible for the newbie to cut it down without at least lingering around a bit to find out if someone else is using it. If on the other hand the gatherer lives in an otherwise uninhabited area, then they might realize that a newcomer would believe the land to be totally uninhabited, and so it would be prudent to make sure that there is at least some evidence of human presence.
Remember, however, that the subjectivity of deciding one way or the other in no way detracts from the objectivity of the concept of property rights. The issue here is that the newbie doesn’t know whether or not property claims exist over the forest, and the gatherer doesn’t know whether or not the newbie is aware of the gatherer’s claim. We are therefore left having to decide what the most “reasonable” course of action for them would be.