but by this logic I have to allow people into my house as long as they are not “interferring”. Deciding what constitutes interference should be the sole discretion of the property owner.
This is probably the most important question in the whole thread:
– by negotiation.
I don’t see how he can win the argument if he hasn’t established a legal right to the land in question, by for example registering a deed in his name to the land in question. When he came upon the land originally, he thought it was virgin land himself. Perhaps it was and perhaps not. But let’s say not. So, in order to protect his new-found asset, he should have registered a claim to it. Then he would be able to claim lawful right to the use of the land as he sees fit (which in your scenario means not cutting down trees, but simply harvesting dead wood.)
If there is no indication to the next person who comes along that the land is considered the property of someone else, then how is the second person to know? This issue is probably why governments started up in the first place - to settle such issues.
The problem with government began when it was decided that government ought to have the right to compel people to pay for its services even before they’d used them. I think it is fine to require payment when you want the service - e.g., when registering a claim to previously unclaimed land, you should pay for that registration - but to compel everyone to pay for government services before they’ve used the service is where it went wrong. The argument was probably much the same as is used today - you want police to be available, so you should cough up the dough to ensure that they are. I think that if the situation were that government had to make do with voluntary contributions, and had to find ways to attract funding voluntarily (because people saw the benefit in having police on call 24/7, for example), then we would not get into the kinds of mess we’ve gotten into historically with all previous systems of government.
The problem here is a government monopoly of these industries. Only the government can have police, only the government can have roads, only the government can deliver first class mail, only the government can put out fires, only the government can have courts and enforce contracts. They use force in order to enforce their monopoly.
I once thought this would be the easy way to resolve this - make a deed. But what happens is somebody can come along and claim as much land as they see fit based on the simple fact that nobody else is around. Somebody could easily just look at Antarctica and claim the whole continent, except the current parts that are occupied by some scientists in a tremendously small area. They can just pull up and say, “It’s all mine.” The argument of involving labor shows habitation and use. Labor connects to your person. A part of you went into something about the land being modified, your sweat, tears, and muscle etc… Thus, the dead branches laying around are labored upon. The live trees bare this necessary fruit that this man worked very hard to gather each year to warm his families house. Something comes along with a “deed”, meaning, just cause they wrote it down on paper before the firewood gather is an intellectual elites way of hurting the peasants all over again. And meanwhile the newbie or whomever with a deed just looks at the land, signs the paper, and somehow claims the land is somehow his or hers. He didn’t labor and show ownership, claim anything upon the land from his or her person.
I think as somebody else posted in this thread. They know cause either they see human evidence of labor so somebody else presently works the land. Secondly he can ask around. He sees neighbors around and I think the reasonable action to take would be for him to ask them, “Does anybody own this land?” Instead of somebody just moving into an area without consideration of the current population (thus the newbie is just another aggressor). If the newbie doesn’t see neighbors, no sign of human labor, then he could even drive to the next faraway house to ask them about it. If the newbie is really that far away from other people and no sign of human labor, then it’s the newbie’s.
In an opposite scenario let’s consider:
Now say somebody (firewood gather) shows up a week later and sees the newbie cutting the trees down and tries to tell the newbie it was his. Well, this firewood gather just showing up a week later trying to lay claim, without leaving any sign of human labor to evidence his claim might be lying and so the newbie, in this case, would get the land. Government need not monopolize what is simply done with reason in the first place anyways.
No, I think the problem with government is elitism. Cause they have a piece of paper they rule decisions, meanwhile somebody was working the land for years they have no entitlement to the land? That’s outrageous. Just cause somebody invented paper they now rule the land. The problem is your form of government doesn’t observe the labor and reason faculty of each individual.
An unwelcome guest in your home is interfering with your usage of the home in several ways: by treading on your floor, getting in your way, obstructing your line of vision, etc. But in the case of the road, all you use it for is going from point A to point B. The mere presence of another traveler does not prevent you from doing this (unless they have a large truck or something).
If a “deed registry” is in place, its purpose should only be to record already-existing property rights, in order to prevent the sort of confusion that we have here between the firewood gatherer and the newcomer. For example, someone might set up a website where people can record their claims for everyone else to see—I would hesitate to call this a “government.” It is important to remember, however, that the registry is not the source of the property rights: you can’t just march onto someone’s obviously occupied farm saying that the farmer’s claim is irrelevant because it is unregistered. And you also can’t just register claims to land with which you have no actual connection—this is the crime of forestalling homesteading (using coercion to prevent people from using unclaimed property, without yourself using it).
Registration is not a pre-requisite for ownership. Registration is in fact regulation, and not laissez-faire.
This has been addressed to you dozens of times now. The problem with government is that there is no competition, and hence, no market accountability.
As to the strange road traveler, he is trespassing on their property. It is not his or hers. But this seems to be an easy solution to just negotiate as somebody in this thread brought up. The individual can ask the people if he or she could walk on through their property. He probably could even get away with it without even asking and they may see him and smile and wave. It doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal in other words. But it is their property, so, technically he would need to ask somebody to use their property no matter what the property is. The land is the same as a clay pot. He couldn’t just pick it up and use it. That is aggressive. It would be more peaceful to ask somebody if he or she could use their clay pot.
As to the deed. I agree. I was basically pointing out the source as you put it. The deed is not the source of the property. The labor is. So a deed could be made, and it would be a heck of a lot easier. Yet, somebody getting a deed would need to show their labor. So whomever sells deeds would need to go out to the land and inspect it for signs of labor. It’s this establishment and source of property that I was basically arguing.
Thanks [:)]
P.S. I was re-thinking the deed. The only problem I see with the deed is the deed could say the land has been worked, but then somebody goes out to the land and finds no signs of labor ever to have been taken place upon the deeded land. Now this could easily run into problems. The culture could shift to honoring deeds due to convenience. It is a slippery slope. Therefore the labor evidence (thus even lack thereof) must be able to over-rule deeds.
My earlier point was that the subjects of ownership are not physical objects, but only the rights to actions associated with those objects. A homeowner has no grounds to object to radio waves being sent through their home because this does not conflict with the rights that the homeowner has established. Likewise, the villagers have homesteaded only the right to travel along the road, and no conflict exists unless someone prevents them from doing this.
The false claimant would of course then be required to compensate all the affected parties for their trouble, thus making investigation a potentially profitable activity.
Negotiate with who exactly?
The difference is only one person can own the clay pot, apparently an entire group owns the land. Under libertarianism, its seems impossible for two or more people to simultaneously fully own the same thing. What if some villagers are ok with the strangers passing through but some aren’t? It creates (at least can create) an overdetermination. Its a rights conflic, call it a fractional reserve ownership society.
the owners
If you are saying the stranger has a right to walk on the road due to public property as Zavoi mentioned when he/she said, “only the rights to actions associated with those objects” pertaining to the public road, then yes I see your point as well as Zavoi’s point. I was thinking about what Zavoi said and yes as you say it would become a rights conflict. There is a difference between public and private property in accord with natural property. Good points both of you. Got me thinking. [:)]
true
So, I need to speak with every member of the village before I can use the road? Again, what if there is a disagreement between some of them?
It seems that either absolutely no one fully owns it and the stranger can use it at whim, or there can only be one owner. Collective ownership doesn’t really make sense.
The villagers need to sort out how their village is owned if they want to exercise this ownership.
I’ve moved on from “talking with each villager”. Zavoi had a good reason for what he/she said.
As to your second point. The path is used to walk on. That is the contract of the natural property. Since no one individual owns the natural property of this path, then no one individual can dispute this claim. If the village wants to modify the contract, the path in other words, then the village would need to get together and negotiate a new contract. This is all based on the historical origin of the property of the path. It was owned by the village traditionally. If anything needs to change according to this tradition (historical precedence of ownership), then it is up to the village. Maybe they will find it better to allow one individual to own the path, maybe not. It’s their property and they can do want they want. If one lone villager gets upset and doesn’t agree with any new contracts the village wants to make about modifying the path, then that lone villager has ever right to be upset. That villager owns the path as equally as all other villagers if as all other villagers this lone villager uses the path too. Time to negotiate I think.