State = feudal owner of all land?

[FlyingAxe]

@gotlucky

I think z1235 is doing a good job here, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I’m actually a little surprised no one has brought up the libertarian position on “just property” versus “unjust property”. As far as it goes, maybe you could say that the US “owns” all the land in the US. After all, in practice, in a sense the US government does. However, this completely neglects the libertarian concepts of “just” and “unjust” property.

Quite simply, the State does not justly own any land.

What is just property vs. unjust one? I have not heard of this concept.

[gotlucky]

Rothbard has mentioned it a lot, as well as many other people.

Here are some Rothbard articles that talk about Just Property:

Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution# The Right to Self-Defense

Property and Exchange in For a New Liberty

I’ll link in an edit so as not to get postponed for aproval.

[FlyingAxe]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly. I.e., if I steal your pencil, I own it in the sense that I control it at the moment, but I don’t own it justly: in a system of property-rights–based law, I would be found a non-owner of your pencil and, therefore, an aggressor.

I would agree that historically, governments came to own land unjustly. But here is the question I already asked:

If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it (“owning” it) unjustly.

But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive.

The same way, although William the Conqueror acquired English land unjustly, today, his descendant Elizabeth II has a better claim to the land than anyone else alive. Or, even though the US government has acquired (and been acquiring) land unjustly (for instance, once a person died without heirs, his land could be homesteaded by anyone; the US government used guns and threats of violence to keep everyone else from homesteading the land, so that it could do it and then sell it), as of today, it has better claim to ownership than any other legal person.

[gotlucky]

@FlyingAxe

Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly.

Rothbard is explaining how someone can justly own property. This would be the opposite of someone unjustly owning property.

I will link to and quote from Property and Criminality from The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard:

Certainly not—for we don’t know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him. In short, while the watch had undoubtedly been B’s property until the moment of A’s attack, we don’t know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some earlier time, and had been robbed by B. Therefore, we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the particular case, i.e., through “historical” inquiry.

Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.

In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of “property rights” or of “private property” per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the “property right” of a criminal aggressor—in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps “natural property.” And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property.

@FlyingAxe

If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it (“owning” it) unjustly.

But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive.

Yes you are still holding it unjustly, and no, you do not have a better claim than anyone else alive. I suspect you read The Ethics of Liberty in its entirety.

[Johnny_Doe]

@FlyingAxe

Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly. I.e., if I steal your pencil, I own it in the sense that I control it at the moment, but I don’t own it justly: in a system of property-rights–based law, I would be found a non-owner of your pencil and, therefore, an aggressor.

I would agree that historically, governments came to own land unjustly. But here is the question I already asked:

If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it (“owning” it) unjustly.

But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive.

The same way, although William the Conqueror acquired English land unjustly, today, his descendant Elizabeth II has a better claim to the land than anyone else alive. Or, even though the US government has acquired (and been acquiring) land unjustly (for instance, once a person died without heirs, his land could be homesteaded by anyone; the US government used guns and threats of violence to keep everyone else from homesteading the land, so that it could do it and then sell it), as of today, it has better claim to ownership than any other legal person.

What about the individuals occupying/using land at this moment in England/USA , don`t they have better claims than the governments?

[FlyingAxe]

@gotlucky

Yes you are still holding it unjustly, and no, you do not have a better claim than anyone else alive. I suspect you read The Ethics of Liberty in its entirety.

The quote from Rothbard you provided shows why I am holding it unjustly if the owner if alive. If the owner is dead, the moment he died, his property became ownerless, res nullius. It becomes the property of whoever takes it first. It just so happens that the moment the previous owner died, the property was in my hands. Hence, it’s mine.

Who else would have a better claim on it than whoever is holding it in his hands at the moment? (Remember, the previous owner left no heirs.)

[FlyingAxe]

@Johnny Doe

What about the individuals occupying/using land at this moment in England/USA , don`t they have better claims than the governments?

If their claim of ownership goes before the conquest by William the Conqueror in England or before the Treaty of Paris in the US, then yes, they do. For instance, Dartmouth College. But in most cases, most occupiers of the land are tenants who received a feudal title to the land from the government. So, it would seem that no, they don’t. If the US government goes kabloom, then the property they occupy will become theirs automatically. Or so it seems to me.

The one caveat in all this is that the states, even if they own the land, cannot imprison anyone for violating the laws. They can only evict the criminals from the land.

Another caveat that I see is that practically speaking, the US government does not exist as an independent organization (unlike the Queen). It exists as a represenatitve body of all the people, and everything it owns, it owns in the name of the people. So, to say that the government owns all the non-allodial land would be to say that all the people together own the land, communally. Then we run into the problem that the government doesn’t really represent the will of people, if we follow Lysander Spooner’s logic.

[Autolykos]

@FlyingAxe

How should a libertarian respond to the claim that all land is owned by the state(s) in a feudal way: i.e., all the “private” land ownership is non-allodial, but is merely a “grant of usage” by the state? Therefore, since all land really belongs to a corporation called “State”, the state has a right to make the rules as to how its “tenants” must behave themselves and also exact a tax for living on the land.

That’s certainly the state’s position on the matter, although it typically takes pains to keep that position hidden. Private ownership, as we know it today, is a legal fiction. Feudalism never really left - the fiefdoms simply got bigger.

I would respond by simply saying that I reject the legitimacy of that claim.

@FlyingAxe

(One obvious caveat is that the state would not be allowed to imprison someone who disobeys the rules. It can only expell him.)

Indeed, which shows how the state routinely violates self-ownership.

[FlyingAxe]

I would respond by simply saying that I reject the legitimacy of that claim.

You reject the concept of feudal property, or you reject the historic claim of the state? Can you elaborate, please?

[Autolykos]

Sure. I don’t reject the concept of feudal property and I do reject the historic claim of the state. Regarding the former, a sort of feudal tenure exists with internet service providers (ISPs). There are three tiers of ISPs, with Tier-1 ISPs serving as the real owners of internet bandwidth. The other two tiers purchase bandwidth from other ISPs. “Feudal tenure” just describes any form of non-allodial title (i.e. rental agreement).

[Johnny_Doe]

@FlyingAxe

@Johnny Doe

What about the individuals occupying/using land at this moment in England/USA , don`t they have better claims than the governments?

If their claim of ownership goes before the conquest by William the Conqueror in England or before the Treaty of Paris in the US, then yes, they do.

Why does this give anyone else than the people occupying/using the the land at this moment, a better claim?

@FlyingAxe

For instance, Dartmouth College. But in most cases, most occupiers of the land are tenants who received a feudal title to the land from the government.

What gives the government a better claim?

@FlyingAxe

So, it would seem that no, they don’t. If the US government goes kabloom, then the property they occupy will become theirs automatically. Or so it seems to me.

The one caveat in all this is that the states, even if they own the land, cannot imprison anyone for violating the laws. They can only evict the criminals from the land.

Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?

@FlyingAxe

Another caveat that I see is that practically speaking, the US government does not exist as an independent organization (unlike the Queen).

The queen is just a mascot representing “a represenatitve body of all the people”.

@FlyingAxe

It exists as a represenatitve body of all the people, and everything it owns, it owns in the name of the people. So, to say that the government owns all the non-allodial land would be to say that all the people together own the land, communally. Then we run into the problem that the government doesn’t really represent the will of people, if we follow Lysander Spooner’s logic.

What would actually be the will of the people?

[FlyingAxe]

@Johnny Doe

What gives the government a better claim?

Because after the original owners of the land died, the land became res nullius. Then the government came, with its guns, and homesteaded the land. Then it rented the land to the current owners. So, the current owners have no claim on the land at all, except as the government’s tenants.

Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?

Because there is no justification for kidnapping people and holding them against their will in a cage. It violates the people’s rights to their body. But if the owner of a property wants to, he can evict anyone from the property.

The queen is just a mascot representing “a represenatitve body of all the people”.

De facto that’s the case. But de jure, she owns all the land in England as a descendant of William the Conqueror who killed the contemporary land owners and then homesteaded their land. (There may be a caveat there, since not all the descendants were killed, and really, not all the Saxon landowners were killed. Some swore to be his subjects; i.e., they transfered the titles of their land to him. But since they did so under duress, there is no recognition that this transaction was valid. But, as in the case of the US, whenever the heirs of the actual owners died, the land was homesteaded by the Crown, which prevented anyone else from homesteading it.)

What would actually be the will of the people?

I don’t understand the question.

[gotlucky]

@FlyingAxe

The quote from Rothbard you provided shows why I am holding it unjustly if the owner if alive. If the owner is dead, the moment he died, his property became ownerless, res nullius. It becomes the property of whoever takes it first. It just so happens that the moment the previous owner died, the property was in my hands. Hence, it’s mine.

No. The quote specifically states, “For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression.” In no way did Rothbard say unless the criminal manages to murder his victim…then it’s just.

I really suggest you read The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard. Here are two chapters that are relevant to this thread:

10. THE PROBLEM OF LAND THEFT

11. LAND MONOPOLY, PAST AND PRESENT

@FlyingAxe

Who else would have a better claim on it than whoever is holding it in his hands at the moment? (Remember, the previous owner left no heirs.)

Anyone but the person who acquired it unjustly.

[Johnny_Doe]

@FlyingAxe

@Johnny Doe

What gives the government a better claim?

Because after the original owners of the land died, the land became res nullius. Then the government came, with its guns, and homesteaded the land.

How did the government homestead the land?

@FlyingAxe

Then it rented the land to the current owners. So, the current owners have no claim on the land at all, except as the government’s tenants.

Why should the government(whoever that is) own land that the government doesn`t occupy/use?

@FlyingAxe

@Johnny Doe

Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?

Because there is no justification for kidnapping people and holding them against their will in a cage. It violates the people’s rights to their body. But if the owner of a property wants to, he can evict anyone from the property.

Wont the government vilolate the peoples right to their bodies when theyre evicted, and isnt it a chance that the evicted people go back to the land they previously occupied/used?

@FlyingAxe

@Johnny Doe

The queen is just a mascot representing “a represenatitve body of all the people”.

De facto that’s the case. But de jure, she owns all the land in England as a descendant of William the Conqueror who killed the contemporary land owners and then homesteaded their land.

How did he go about homestaeading?

@FlyingAxe

(There may be a caveat there, since not all the descendants were killed, and really, not all the Saxon landowners were killed. Some swore to be his subjects; i.e., they transfered the titles of their land to him. But since they did so under duress, there is no recognition that this transaction was valid. But, as in the case of the US, whenever the heirs of the actual owners died, the land was homesteaded by the Crown, which prevented anyone else from homesteading it.)

Only the heirs without heirs, not the heirs with heirs?

@FlyingAxe

@Johnny Doe

What would actually be the will of the people?

I don’t understand the question.

If we don`t follow LS?