Anybody else read this? What an amazing book!
I am about 2/3rds of the way through but I have a question about the Homesteading concept. What is the definition of land that has been claimed or homesteaded? In particular, how would the hunting grounds of Native Americans be categorized? Were the European settlers violating property rights?
There’s some real gems in The Ethics of Liberty. Unfortunately the fundamental principle, the NAP, needs stronger grounding than what he gives it in my opinion (oh and some of the stuff on children’s rights makes me cringe a bit).
Homesteaded land is usually considered to be any land the owner has “mixed their labour” with which in less obscure terms just means transformed in some way. There are some issues with this concept, mostly because it’s a bit vague, but it’s a good starting point for property theory because the link between property and aggression is quite simple (to appropriate it is to in some way appropriate their labour). As for Native American hunting grounds i’m not familiar enough with the history but Rothbard would say anywhere that was developed by them and later taken should be considered stolen and I would venture to say this was true for at least some cases. Living on land for that long without developing something would be quite difficult. Also Roderick Long has an argument that even non-developed land can be considered a sort of “temporary property” if the “owner” is engaged in some on-going use of it on the grounds that we shouldn’t interfere with this use but because it isn’t transformed in anyway it reverts back to unowned when they are done. He also says ongoing use of land in such a way as to prevent it from being altered counts as labour-mixing (creating a nature reserve for example) although I personally found his argument for this a little sketchy. However, these would both give weight to the claim that the European settlers, even if not violating property rights, were still violating more general libertarian principles.
Yes, a great book. Another one is For A New Liberty by Rothbard. In it he covers this topic with some additional detail. For example on page 95:
[T]he natural-rights justification for the ownership of ground land is the same as the justification for the original ownership of all other property. For, as we have seen, no producer really “creates” matter; he takes nature-given matter and transforms it by his labor energy in accordance with his ideas and vision. But this is precisely what the pioneer—the “homesteader”—does when he brings previously unused land into his own private ownership. Just as the man who makes steel out of iron ore transforms that ore out of his know-how and with his energy, and just as the man who takes the iron out of the ground does the same, so does the homesteader who clears, fences, cultivates, or builds upon the land. The homesteader, too, has transformed the character of the nature-given soil by his labor and his personality. The homesteader is just as legitimately the owner of the property as the sculptor or the manufacturer; he is just as much a “producer” as the others.
Homesteading is NOT expropriation of others property. One cannot simply make use of land and claim it as one’s own if it is currently the property of another. Early non-Spanish Europeans recognized the property rights of natives and traded for title to lands. In most cases, natives were allowed continued use of certain aspects of this traded land. However, as more and more consolidationists came to power (mid 19th century), the property rights of natives were propotionately less recognized and land was merely taken. In fact, the property rights of the people in general, native and citizen, became proportionately less recognized. Thomas E Woods Jr wrote of this in his book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.”
I am having some real trouble with the children section as well. I understand most of it until Rothbard starts talking about the illegality of aggressing against children:
In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.
Does the term illegality imply the presence of the state? This would seem to be at odds with the anarcho-capitalist model. Thoughts?
“Does the term illegality imply the presence of the state?”
Nope.
“This would seem to be at odds with the anarcho-capitalist model. Thoughts?”
I’m not sure what isn’t being understood?
It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say “no” to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say “no.”[8]
Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
There are many things that are illegal even without the state, namely, aggression against the person or property of another.