Thanks Wesker1982, it seems relevant, I’ll read through your discussion.
And just for completeness, ownership type #3 would encompass violent competition type ownership as well. So just randomly waring factions taking the spoils of war. That is a type of law, but it isn’t consistent with NAP, it might be consistent with whatever rules of conduct the victor has determined though. So using stolen resources (stolen according to NAP), to go take land from natives (own according to NAP by the natives) falls under case #3… it is probably legal according to whatever legal system the invading conuntry has created. Libertarians want #3 to become identical with #2. I’m not sure what libertarians think about #1, yet… seems like they might not accept it as relevant.
I think the take away message I am trying to get at is this:
Violence can be used to create just ownership.
This is not actually inconsistent with the NAP. This is not saying that I can take your property and then it is mine; that is #3. It is saying that I can take your property and have it become mine under specific conditions which do not purely involve voluntary exchange. I think that this encompasses both #1 and #2.
So, does the new just owner have to voluntarily acquire it from the thief? Or can it be violently taken from the thief? In other words, pure violence can create ownership consistent with the NAP. This is one of the issues at question here.
Of course, someone will argue that violence requires infringement of property rights, so taking property from a thief is not violent. And that is a valid point too and may solve the conundrum.
So in order to right the wrong, it has to be completely negated, meaning the prpoerty must necessarily be removed from the thief’s possession. And this is by definition negating the initial violence. So, in essense, two wrongs make a right, however, philosophically speaking, the second wrong is the negation of the first wrong! This brings up many more questions which I will save for another thread…
Sorry for so many posts in a row…
I will consider this question mostly resolved, not perfectly, but mostly.
@ Wesker1982
SO that would mean that my apartment would suddenly belong to me and my landlord would be SOL. Is this what you propose?
If the original victim and heirs could not be identified, then your landlord was the first occupier of the unowned land. He homesteaded it when he built your apartment, or acquired it voluntarily from the previous owner (who homesteaded it).
This is from your thread. I think there is a misunderstanding here and a technicality overlooked. If it was discovered that the specific land the apartment complex was built on was stolen, and the heirs no longer exist, then it becomes unowned. When did it become unowned? At the death of the last heir, or at the moment of discovery of the original ownership claim?
It might be that the current resident in the apartment becomes the new just owner, depending on how we answer that question. My point in this thread is that the living heir is still the absolute just owner (#1). It becomes unowned when that heir dies. If the apartment complex was built after that death, then I would say the landlord is the new just owner. If the heir died after the apartment complex was built, I would say the renter would be the new just owners, because the landlord never justly owned it. The landlords legal ownership becomes illigitimate and a new homesteading must occur, which is instantaneously satisfied by the renter’s presense. However, one might argue that all renters would have to move out and remove all their property, and then a free for all would determine who gets the apartments, however, I think this is less desireable. The most desireable thing (for keeping social peace), would be to keep legal records as they are… i.e. that the landlord keeps ownership. But i see that as less consistent with the NAP if the apartments were built before the death of the heir.
This would not be my personal opinion, but would be what I think is most consistent with the NAP and ownership type #1.
Correct, Jim would be able to take it by force from the thief and still have a better claim to it than the thief.
The just owner always holds a legal title. A title does not have to be a formal document stating that one holds title. You hold title to the clothes on your person, even if you have since thrown out the receipt stating that you bought the clothes. People prefer to have physical documents stating that they hold title when the property in question is extremely valuable (to them or others). Most people do not bother to take the time to catalogue and document all their possessions, but they certainly make sure they have documents about their house, their car, and any other valuables (e.g. a gun, though a lot of that has to do with the state requiring documents).
I think you are making a distinction where there isn’t one. I have stated this at least twice, and you have not addressed this point:
If you find a $20 on the street, you have no way of knowing who the owner is. The owner has no way of knowing if that $20 is even his (we are presuming that the owner did not just drop it and immediately pick it right back up). The point is, no one is claiming to own that $20. It is an unowned $20. Whoever picks it up becomes the new just owner.
If it were the case that the just owner was able to trace it, suppose he has marked it in some way, then if he were to find it, then he could make a claim that it is his rightful $20. If he can actually prove to other people that it is in fact his $20, then the fact of the matter is that we do know who the owner is, so the property must go back to the just owner.
We are stressing the point of traceability because there is a lot of property that just cannot be traced, such as money you find on the street. If it cannot be traced, then there is no just owner, as there is no owner. But this depends entirely upon the fact of it not being traced. If it could be traced, then we would know who the owner is.
I don’t see how you can make a distinction between “philosophical just owner” and “practical just owner”. Someone is either a just owner or they are not.
That is not the typical understanding of the word violence. Violence is physical force. If you take the property from the thief through force, you have used violence against him.
This is different from aggression, which is the initiation of violence or the threat thereof. Taking the property from the thief is not aggressive (within proportion), so it is in line with the NAP.
With other words, you can not, not even remotely, substantiate your claim. And that’s why you resort to an ad populum claim.
All of what you claim is controversial, there are just some interest groups that would like to make others believe they are “common knowledge”.
Quite commonly the “indigenous property rights” are based on ius ad usum or ius ad bellum. That means the person or group that are using land or items right now are rightfully owning it. Or that means whoever is powerful enough to coerce others to either give up or to defend something is entitled it.
I have no idea what each single settlers perception of “indegenous property rights” were, but I deem it possible that at least some of them did kind of fall back onto the same mind set and viewed either what they’ve home-steaded as theirs or what they’ve taken with might to become rightfully theirs. It seems the “natives” did actually share that view, until some of them came to enjoy education at Western/European institution where they were exposed to other legal theories.
I can also tell you how it works with the different Bantu people. I’d have to pay a chief a lump sum or agree on employing of his people to get ad usum rights to some area. Alternatively I could get a artisanal gold claim for R600 (less then US$70) again at their pleasure, but with the hope that I will employ of their people. This isn’t property fixed to a person but vesting in the tribe of people represented by their chief.
Still you can’t substantiate anything of what you say.
There is a proper role for the use or threat of violence. The fact that - a priori - we desire the minimization of violence does not flow from violence being in some cosmic sense “immoral” but, rather, from the simple fact that it is impoverishing. Hence, the minimization of violence is not an end-in-itself. Rather, prosperity (individual human flourishing) is the end desired and the minimization of violence is one of the logical preconditions to achieving this. This is why we’re not pacifists.
Clayton -
So you admit that I’m right. The European settlers knew exactly what they were doing to the indigenous people but they did it anyway because they could.
You’re a space cadet if you seriously believe that a social order could exist with this sort of social norm.
Clayton -
gotlucky**:**
The just owner always holds a legal title.
The just owner holds title, but not necessary according to the law of the State where the property is located. This is the sense I am using legal in. Human law is arbitrary (legal ownership, #3), NAP law is not arbitrary (just ownership, #1 & #2).
I think you are making a distinction where there isn’t one.
Jim steals Bob’s watch. Bob is the absolute just owner (#1 — assuming he acquired it nonviolently, etc, etc). However, if Bob cannot make a successful claim and prove that Jim stole his watch, he is not the practical just owner (#2), but he is still the absolute just owner due to the unrecognized reality of history that has unfolded. We do not require lady justice to know all of history with absolute perfect precision. I am distinguishing between reality and our imperfect knowledge of reality.
A claim to ownership is a necessary condition of ownership.
Yes, for ownership of type #2, but not type #1. This is what I am arguing.
If you find a $20 on the street, you have no way of knowing who the owner is…
This is a separate issue, lost vs stolen. The difference is agency is involved in the latter. I agree with your analysis, however, if there were antional registry of cash by serial number, and the finder knew about this registry, I would argue that NAP would require the finder to make some reasonable attempt to locate the owner.
I don’t see how you can make a distinction between “philosophical just owner” and “practical just owner”. Someone is either a just owner or they are not.
This is the question. See the watch example above. Just because someone cannot prove just ownership, should not mean they aren’t the just owner. Otherwise a carefully crafted theft can result in just ownership. This is why I distinguish between two types of just ownership. It alows us to live our lives and be practical without having to worry about the deeper events of reality that we cannot know.
In other words, the average US citizen does not need to worry about returning the stolen land they occupy to the Native Americans it was stolen from. The Native Americans are still the absolute just owners (assuming the lineage is still alive), but they are not the practical just owners because their claim cannot be proven or because they haven’t made a specific claim.
Again, the distinction is between the actual hsitory of events and human knowledge of those events. Isn’t it self evident that human knowledge can be distinct from objective reality? If we reject that, then we open a whole other HUGE can of worms…
So you admit that I’m right. The European settlers knew exactly what they were doing to the indigenous people but they did it anyway because they could.
Classical example of taking quotes out of context and attaching meaning to it to suffice ones own purposes.
Except for the rest of the problems, where did you substantiate what you said previously? Place it or admit your failure to do so. This would be the only basis for any further debate on the subject.
Can you substantiate your counter claim? Aren’t you both making claims about action that we all agree existed? The question is only about the details of that action and the actors intent (state of knowledge). One person makes a claim the mind state was X, the other person makes a claim the mind state was Y.
Of course, all the history books could be wrong, and Native Americans could be the invaders and Europeans the indiginous… Can you prove to me that this is not the case?
It is silly to not accept historical records and scientific method as proof. It is the only thing we have for proving anything. It’s not a ad populum argument because it is based in historical records.
If Native Americans accepted that the rules of war means they did not own their property after it was taken/lost, then that does not negate the fact that the property was stolen according to the NAP. It just means they did not understand the NAP. Is it ok to tax Democrats and Republicans but not libertarians because they understand the NAP? No, it is wrong because it violates the NAP, not because of a particular belief held by the victim.
Yes, what I wrote was incorrect. The legal owner always holds title. What libertarians are saying is that the just owner ought to be the legal owner (and that his property ought to be returned if it has been stolen).
No. Bob is still the just owner, only he cannot prove it to the rest of society. Jim becomes the legal owner, and it is unfortunate. Humans are not perfect.
I see where the problem is. A claim of ownership is a necessary condition even for your type #1. Consider:
As you can see, a claim of ownership is a necessary condition even for your type #1, as a claim of ownership is a necessary condition for ownership of any kind.
No. You are not obligated to do anything according to the NAP. You only cannot use aggression against anyone else or their just property. As Clayton pointed out in an earlier post, buyer beware. Check to see if the property you are trying to acquire is not stolen (or lost). Should the just owner of the property trace and attempt to reclaim his property, you must honor his wishes or go to court (this is only true in libertopia, of course; the state does whatever it wants).
If someone cannot prove he is the just owner, it is true that he may still be the just owner, but nobody else will be able to know this fact. Someone is either a just owner or they are not. In libertopia, the goal is to attempt to have all legal owners be just owners, even if it won’t be the case. The law in libertopia will never settle everything perfectly. But it will come a hell of a lot closer to perfect than the current statutory law that we have.
Well, there may be Native Americans who are just owners, except that they can only be just owners if specific people make claims to specific plots of land. Otherwise, their claims are akin to saying, “My entire family was mugged the other night in NYC. Someone, somewhere in NYC has my wallet. I want all NYC muggers to return all stolen wallets to my family.” That just doesn’t fly. They don’t have claims to everyone else’s wallet. They have a claim to their own wallet.
When the wallet cannot be traced to the owner, that is another way of saying that no one is claiming to own the wallet. Anyone other than the thief can rightfully own the wallet. But should the man whose wallet was stolen find and reclaim the wallet, then his wishes should be honored.
Just because human knowlege is fallible does not change who the just owner is. It can only change who the legal owner is. Libertarians just want the legal owner to be the same as the just owner. But, as I said above, this may not be possible even in libertopia, as humans are fallible. But in libertopia, it is far more likely that the legal owner will be the just owner than in any kind of statist society.
No. Bob is still the just owner, only he cannot prove it to the rest of society. Jim becomes the legal owner, and it is unfortunate. Humans are not perfect.
I’m not sure this is inline with Rothbard. This means that Native Americans are still the just owners of certain pieces of land. In my opinion, absolute just ownership doesn’t require the action of making a claim, nor the ability to prove a claim if it were made. I was taking your comment “claim of ownership” to mean the act of making a claim, such as a verbal statement. Maybe you just meant being the owner is equivalent to having a claim of ownership, e.g. title (not necessarily a State-legal one), property rights, etc.
A man is hiking in the forest, and everything within this particular forest is unowned. He comes across a blueberry plant, and he picks some blueberries. Now, should he claim this plant as his own, he would be the just owner according to libertarian theory. But suppose he does not claim it as his own. Suppose he just uses it the one time and decides he does not care to claim it as his own. Well, should someone else come along and pick blueberries from the same plant, he is not violating the first man’s just property, as the first man never claimed it as his property.
As you can see, a claim of ownership is a necessary condition even for your type #1, as a claim of ownership is a necessary condition for ownership of any kind.
Not as I have defined it. The original picker of the blueberry plant would own it without making a claim if the picking was a regular and somewhat frequent event. This constitutes continued use of the object, which makes it property in my opinion. However, if multiple people are picking from the plant regularly, then they collectively own it. This is just my opinion, I’m not deriving this from Rothbard or NAP. In my opinion, Native Americans own the land that they use regularly even though they do not have a concept of land-ownership. Otherwise, we must conclude that non-libertarians are not stolen from when they are taxed.
No. You are not obligated to do anything according to the NAP.
Ok, this is fine. I can accept that the NAP doesn’t require this. But still there is a distinction between lost and stolen. With loss, the finder can be just owner, with stolen another change of hands is required and aggression was initiated. I think the latter is a bit more complicated a situation in that there are more variables to deal with. This gives rise to all sorts of new questions too: So the NAP just requires the finder to give it back if the loser can prove the claim? Why would the finder believe the loser’s claim, what if they do not agree on what constitutes proof? In the end it is just a case of SOL. In my opinion, the loser is still the just owner and not the finder. This is why I distinguish between #1 and #2.
Well, there may be Native Americans who are just owners, except that they can only be just owners if specific people make claims to specific plots of land.
This is why I am distinguishing between just ownership and the ability to prove it.
Just because human knowlege is fallible does not change who the just owner is.
??? This is my point!!! Even if the absolute just owner cannot prove ownership, they are still the just owner. I am making a fundamental change to Rothbard’s position.
“Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.”
Yes, Rothbard is correct that if the just owner cannot be found, then the new non-thief owner is the just owner. However, my claim is that this is a practical just ownership. It is conditional ont he continual non-finding of the original just owner. Because 10 years down the road, if the original just owner turns up and can prove the claim, the practical just owner loses ownership. This by definition is not absolute just ownership. Absolute just ownership would mean that it is not possible for someone to make a true claim (one representing the actual unfolding of history). Of course one might succesfully make a false claim to aggress against someone’s just ownership, but that does not destroy the absolute just ownership; it can only create a succession of practical just ownerships. We cannot say it is unjust for the subsequent non-thief parties to be owners. But we can claim that they are not the just owners as well… this is why I think a ddistinction is necessary.
Libertarians just want the legal owner to be the same as the just owner. But, as I said above, this may not be possible even in libertopia, as humans are fallible. But in libertopia, it is far more likely that the legal owner will be the just owner than in any kind of statist society.
Yes, this is what I said. But still, you have no choice but to recognize the difference between human knowledge of reality and actual objective reality.
In Libertopia, the Law is the NAP, but this is not enough to always determine perfect absolute justice. Following the NAP does not give humans perfect knowledge, and therfore errors is making legitimate claims will occur. Of course, if you condition Libertopia on every citizen following the NAP perfectly (no aggression exists), then all ownership will exactly be type #1 (with some assumptions on history).
All I’m saying is that there is a difference in the actual unfolding of reality, and how we percieve reality. And how we percieve reality is not necessarily unjust because of our imperfections.
Ideally just ownership would be tied to the actual unfolding of reality, but for practical reasons it isn’t, it is tied to our perception of reality. So there are two types of just ownership, the one that is tied to actual reality which is independent of our perceptions (except in that our perceptions influence the unfolding of reality) is the actual just ownership. But even with our imperfections, we require justice to exist in a percievable way. So in evaluating situations of loss or theft, we must be able to have justice. This means using our imperfect perception of reality to determine who is the just owner. If that determination doesn’t match up with actual reality, that doesn’t make it unjust as long as the judges are acting in accordance with the NAP. This simply means that you can lose and gain just ownership because of aggression (except the intial aggressor can not gain).
In other words, the NAP defines justice, not reality. Reality is not necessarily just.
No, this is not at all what it means. Look, I don’t really want to keep going in circles about this. There are not specific Native Americans making claims about specific plots of land. They are making general claims about general areas. As I said (and you didn’t quote this section for some reason):
These are not legitimate claims.
Ownership requires a claim. Period. If you do not claim to own your stuff, then it’s not your stuff. There is no other way. If you do not claim that your car is your car, then it is not your car. Claim of ownership is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of ownership.
When you abandon property, it can be acceptable to abandon it implicitly, such as when you leave your trash on the side of the road for pickup. But claims to ownership are a little a different. No one can know that you are claiming to own something unless you demonstrate to them that you are claiming to own it. It is not enough to just pick berries from a bush, you have to demonstrate it. Typically, this is done by fencing it in, or putting up a sign. Sometimes you have to tell them. If you are a mute or speak a different language, then you must make some sort of gesture. But no one can know that you are claiming the bush as your property if you do not make some sort of claim. People are not psychic.
You have completely missed the point of my story. The point is that the first user did not claim to own the plant. The point is that he did not care to claim it as his property, so it is not his property. He is letting other people claim it as their own. I am not trying to make an analogous scenario to the Native Americans. I am merely demonstrating that a claim to ownership is a necessary condition of ownership.
It’s not about whether or not the loser believes the finder. If the finder can prove that it is his property, he may acquire it using force if need be. In libertopia, the law allows for this (whether the law is common law or customary law, otherwise it wouldn’t be libertopia). If the finder cannot prove it is his property, then he is SOL. If he cannot prove it, then the rest of society has no way to know if his claims are true or false. Tell me, should we be punishing alleged criminals on the mere say-so of plaintiffs? There is a reason why libertarians support the standard beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are just owners and legal owners.
They are only the just owner so long as the make a claim. As far as I’m aware, I don’t know of any specific Native Americans making claims to specific plots of land, such as Joe Indian claiming 1 Main Street, Los Angeles CA to be his rightful property as the decendant of the original just owner. Without this, they cannot even be rightful owners.
If the just owner cannot be found, then the new non-thief owner is the just owner. But if the original just owner does find his property and make a claim, then the status of just owner reverts to him. The new owner is no longer a just owner. There cannot be more than one just owner at a time, with the only exception being just joint ownership.
Even with no aggression, there are still going to be disputes about property rights. Law cannot be reasoned out perfectly a priori. Certainly there are general principles that we can reason out, but the details of specific disputes cannot be known a priori. Not all ownership would be this ideal just ownership that we fantasize about. Just ownership is an ideal that we strive for. It can never be reached perfectly. The idea is that in libertopia, legal ownership and just ownership would almost always align, with few exceptions. This is unlike statist societies where the state does not care for just ownership (after all, state’s can only exist through violating just ownership).
Oh yes it does make it unjust. If you witness the murder of a loved one, and you know who did it, but you cannot prove it in a court of law, that does not mean that if the rest of society says you can’t prove it that the murderer didn’t do it. It just means that you can’t prove it, and that if you take action against the murderer, you are taking matters into your own hands without the blessing of society.
The murderer is the murderer. Punishing him is just. But if you can’t prove it was him to the rest of society, then you are acting alone and will accept the consequences of what you have done. Your actions will be just, but you cannot expect anyone else to see it that way. If you are punished for your actions, this will be unjust. But no one else will see it that way as you could never prove that your actions were just.
No, this is not at all what it means. Look, I don’t really want to keep going in circles about this. There are not specific Native Americans making claims about specific plots of land. They are making general claims about general areas. As I said (and you didn’t quote this section for some reason):
That illustrates that “Native Americans” do have an idea concerning property in land, different from people of Europid descent, just as I mentioned previously. This of course also begs the question: Who has got the RIGHT idea concerning property?
What I also find funny is the common assumption that only whites got their property via violence or “taking it away from someone”. Except that there usually is no evidence for this whatsoever, what about the question, if landed property the “Natives” claim, had been taken away from someone else previously?
Gotlucky, Do you think I should debate Clayton further on this?
Well I don’t know how different their conception was. Certainly not all nations had the same conception, as some were nomadic and some were not. The Iroquois had longhouses, which even though they were communal, they were fixed to specific plots of land. Certainly decendants of the Iroquois could make claims to those plots, but the problem is that they are not claiming the plots where the longhouses were located. And certainly after all this time, it is probably impossible to prove where the longhouses were located specifically.
So, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that a murdering thief does not have a rightful claim to the property he has acquired unjustly, and that anybody else has a more rightful claim than him? And that examples of murdering thieves would be war? So territory and property acquired through war is unjust and anybody else has a more rightful claim?
Well, that would seem to make it harder for Clayton to prove the settlers necessarily were wrong, because they may have acquired land from unjust owners. But, and this is a huge but, the burden of proof is not on Clayton to prove that the settlers stole justly owned land, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the settlers stole unjustly owned land. Because without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the current owners are the rightful owners.
But, I do agree that the statement “The settlers necessarily stole just land from the Native Americans” would be a false statement, as certainly some of the land acquired by the settlers had been unjustly owned by some of the Native Americans, but the question is which land was unjustly owned. And I’m too lazy to go ahead and reread what Clayton wrote to see what his claims were exactly. Certainly some settlers acquired some land unjustly, and the same can be said of the Native Americans. This is one of the reasons we need specific people to make claims about specific plots of land.
Perhaps. It seems like Clayton is making a more generalized statement than he should be. Like I said, we know that some settlers (colonial America or actual America) acquired some land unjustly (Trail of Tears anyone?). But certainly not all settlers did this. So without more details, we can’t really make generalized comments about what most settlers did or believed. However, Clayton’s point that settlers knew that Native Americans had conceptions about property rights and pretended they didn’t when they violated them does seem a little weird. After all, Native Americans and colonists/Americans (or French when they were there too) traded. So, Clayton is certainly right when he says that colonists/Americans/whoever knew that Native Americans had ideas about property rights because they demonstrated this with the very act of trading with them. But I have no idea if these very same people all of a sudden pretended they didn’t when some of them acquired land through theft and murder. I would need evidence for that.