What is required to homestead legitimately?

[dude6935]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle#Fencing_vs_mixing_labor

Linda and Morris Tannehill opine in The Market for Liberty that physically claiming the land (e.g. by fencing it in or prominently staking it out) should be enough to obtain good title:

An old and much respected theory holds that for a man to come into possession of a previously unowned value it is necessary for him to “mix his labor with the land” to make it his own. But this theory runs into difficulties when one attempts to explain what is meant by “mixing labor with land.” Just how much labor is required, and of what sort? If a man digs a large hole in his land and then fills it up again, can he be said to have mixed his labor with the land? Or is it necessary to effect a somewhat permanent change in the land? If so, how permanent?..Or is it necessary to effect some improvement in the economic value of the land? If so, how much and how soon?..Would a man lose title to his land if he had to wait ten months for a railroad line to be built before he could improve the land?..And what of the naturalist who wanted to keep his land exactly as it was in its wild state to study its ecology?..[M]ixing one’s labor with the land is too ill-defined a concept and too arbitrary a requirement to serve as a criterion of ownership.

What is the best answer here? Someone has to render judgement on whether a piece of land is owned or not. Some arbitrariness is unavoidable.

[Snowflake]

Neither are correct. You can only homestead use. If you build a fence, fine. You still can’t stop people from doing things that don’t interfere with your right to build a fence.

You can mix your labor with the land. You can start farming. You can’t stop people from broadcasting radio waves through your crops, or tapping the oil beneath your feet.

[dude6935]

I agree; that is the point. The principle of homesteading ownership isn’t adequate to solve the problem of scarce land use. It is ambiguous and it requires arbitrary rules to make it work.

The principal of free land use (or whatever you want to call it) doesn’t require rules. Land is treated as space, it is only occupied or unoccupied. And it is legitimate in either state.

[Snowflake]

The point is to focus on the use-theory of homesteading, not the ad hoc right wing propertarian concept. The applicability of the non-aggression principle becomes more obvious under the use-theory because you don’t rely on property becoming imbued metaphysically.

[dude6935]

I am surprised there has been no defense of homesteading ownership. Since that is the prevailing notion, I would expect it to be well represented.

[Snowflake]

Is it the prevailing theory? Its either a straw man for the radical left to knock down or an the thoughtless position of the conservative right.

[dude6935]

I was under the impression that it was the prevailing theory in this forum. I see homesteading discussed by libertarians all the time, and they aren’t talking about use. The Wikipedia article on homesteading defines it in terms of ownership. If that is not the common position, we need to correct the article.

The homestead principle in law is the concept that one can gain ownership of a natural thing that currently has no owner by using it or building something out of it. Along with self-ownership, the right to homestead is one of the foundations of deontological libertarianism.

[Libertyandlife]

“…or tapping the oil beneath your feet”

This reminds me of the ending of There Will Be Blood.