But not this one, I think you’re missing my point. The point remains there is no single individual who has homesteaded the land, the form of social organization isn’t the point. The point is that there is a lack of conscious homesteading, these individuals merely use much in the same way as animals. Moreover, whilst there may be some vague notion of property, it doesn’t follow that these individuals have any clear notion of what exactly is their property and what isn’t.
No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that these individuals will make claims to territory when they clearly do not own it. For example a forest that they’ve once killed an animal in a forest and now they claim to be owners of that forest. The fact remains they can’t specify what they own and what they don’t. As such the whole thing is very vaguely defined.
No, individuals can homestead. And individuals only.
This has nothing to do with corporations. Where it is made explicit. Moreover, in a corporations individuals have already homesteaded the required capital, which clearly isn’t the case here.
You don’t need communal property to make this argument. It’s far simpler to say that either:
The property is still unowned, or,
The first individual to clear the path homesteaded it and allowed others to make improvements to the land.
Communal rights don’t exist, only individual rights do.
But I haven’t claimed otherwise, in fact, I’ve agreed with you in saying that it would need to be settled in regard to each scenario. Which it would, since cooperation is far cheaper than conflict.
Yes, but that’s quite besides the point. I’ll agree with you that these primitives understand property rights. Easements? Not a chance.
You make a very convincing argument, as such I’ll grant you this point.
So you’re saying that even if they have a homesteading claim, but can’t recognize or articulate it, that is sufficient reason to take the resource from them? What if the failure to comprehend them is yours?
Obviously, I agree with you on this. But as presented, the notion is that primitive people can have their territory confiscated, if there is a higher efficiency to be found under different ownership. Did I misunderstand that?
What about a couple? Husband and wife team?
The former is incorrect. I has everything to do with voluntary and participatory legal structures, which may not be your own. What I consider to be the most important part of libertarianism, is the freedom of law and security. You (and some others) seem to focus on the freedom to provide security, but not so much on diversity of law and legal systems.
The latter, is also incorrect. When you ride over the hill on your burro, and survey a valley full of fruit orchards and tiny lakes, with a scattering of grass skirted people on that land, how do you know if they homesteaded the land? Removed rocks. Planted the trees. Irrigated the land. Removed foliage?
Taking land in use by others, even if you think it is not well used, barely used etc is not as simple as making an argument for your superior need, use or superiority of person (ability to argue more rationally).
I don’t know why you are going through so many loops. The problems of inheritance and consent of the disabled are already solved in the current legal system without the state’s involvement.
This isn’t what the thread is about. The topic is what to do with property that is outside of the legal system and tied up in hegemonic bonds.
But that is not correct. It’s outside YOUR preferred legal system. You’re presuming that there is a monopoly on law and only you can interpret what that law is.
In the current legal system where? In the UK? Canada? India? Congo? Singapore? What year? 2008? 2045? 1872? When?
You have not made a solid argument on that topic either as the current system is a state monopoly of law creation, interpretation and enforcement.
I don’t really feel a burning need to break down how inheritance and consent are handled ,it’s not particularly interesting to me, except that you were making an argument that is based upon a completely arbitrary nature to define what is theft, and what is homesteading. The capacity for rational argumenatation.
I’m not making any argument about what is homesteading. As I pointed out right at the beginning, homesteading is inapplicable to most of the world’s non-private property. It’s by trying to fit homesteading into situations it is meaningless that your argument runs in circles.
Of course, if they can’t comprehend the notion of a particular piece of property being theirs as opposed to some vague around perhaps between log X, tree Y and rock Z then they can’t be said to have fulfilled the subjective aspect of homesteading, and hence can’t be said to own the land. Moreover, it’s impossible to recognize any individual owner, and since only individuals can own property only individuals can homestead it.
Perhaps that’s Stranger’s argument, not mine. My arguments is that the land is free to be homestead since these individuals can’t be said to have homesteaded. Now, once again, let me reiterate that this has to be decided on a case to case basis as opposed to making sweeping generalizations. There are tribes who are clearly more advanced and have a sound concept of property rights and there are those that lack that capacity almost completely.
No, they can’t homestead property. They can jointly own it, but that’s only it has been homesteaded. Since it takes action to homestead land and only individuals act.
Yes, there will be different systems of law to cater to different individuals, which is quite besides the point since there will need to be some basic principles.
If there’s a subjective aspect to it, if that’s lacking, then I haven’t homesteaded it.
My argument has nothing to do with that, it has to do with the fact that it can’t be said to be owned.