Let’s say that we have a corporation or family that has owned the land for a long time; centuries, even; and that they’re recognised as the landowners by the prevailing legal authority, whatever that is. There are hints about impropriety with regard to acquisition of land or assets down the line, but probably no longer traceable now. We can say for certain, however, that the owners are not the original homesteaders of the land, and no-one has a clue who these would be. Now there are a bunch of tenants on the land who are getting concerned about their rights vis-a-vis the landowner; maybe his rents are too punitive, or the conditions of lease too stringent; but they’re not too sure where else they can go that won’t be worse. Certainly to be kicked out this instant would be devastating; to pull that off would take months of planning and saving (with money the landowner might not be leaving in their pockets).
So, in this situation, how many rights do they have against the landowner? Can he really impose any conditions he likes on them? If not, where is the line drawn? Torture? Prima noctae rights? Does the opinion of the prevailing legal system mean anything? Or does the lack of a defined “first homesteader” give the tenants a more radical alternative, such as the right to insist on certain contractual terms, or even to effect forcible redistribution of title to the land?
one question. So the landowner is not the original homesteader and so his/her property legitimacy is being questioned. I think that’s what’s on the table correct? I understand answering this leads into inquires that the tenants may hold. But it is unknown who the original homesteader is and this would make this particular landowner the certainly known first homesteader and thereby legitimate property owner. I apologize ahead of time if I detracted from your original speculation.
This condition absolutely must hold. If there is evidence (rather than hints or allegations) or impropriety, especially evidence of a usurpation, then the current tenants have a superior claim to the nominal landowner. (Of course, the actual heirs/assigns of the aggrieved party would have the superior claim, if they existed or cared to exercise it.)
The tenants and landowner(s) must have agreed to some sort of contract (or they would not be trading); the tenants and landlord would need to refer to the contract in order to see their enumerated or reserved rights, obligations, and actions of recourse and remedy. If there is no contract and these “tenants” just popped into existence on the landowner’s land, they are likely trespassing.
You seem to have initialized an incomplete situation, most of which is irrelevant to the contract.
Regarding the landowner(s) legitimacy;
If the landowner(s) legitimacy were in question the “prevailing legal authority” would decide whether or not the contracts can be enforced (should the contract be questioned). Ultimately the legal authority would follow its procedures regarding abandonment, homesteading and property rights.
If you can’t trace the first homesteader, how can you prove that this individual was not the first homesteader or that he gained the property by appropriating property abandoned by the first homesteader?
The entire question seems somewhat ridiculous. If the tenants came onto the property after the current landowner had a claim, then they are only tenants. If they were on the property prior to the landowner making claim, then they have the first claim and are landowners themselves.
On my property, you leave when I tell you to leave. If we have an agreement about periods of notice or some other contractual deal, then obviously that changes things.
Forcible redistribution of the land is justifiable how and why?
Occupancy and use is nonsense, and Stephan Kinsella iirc has beaten it up quite well on the Mises blog.
Yes. I noticed the “hints” as well. These “hints” are extracted from an investigation or they are rumors circulated by the tenants. I don’t know. Any number of things are possible. So the issue of “hints” needs cleared up by the OP before getting into the tenant inquiries, unless, this was intended by the OP as being part of the story/event. Then I’d say the landowner is the certainly known original homesteader.
This isn’t necessarily right. If the title holder (“nominal landowner”) is himself the land thief, this would be the case. If the title holder is instead the thief’s grandson, his claim is superior to the tenants’ unless the tenants themselves are victims of the thief or decendents of victims.
Merely having stolen property is not a crime. Refusing to return stolen property with sufficient evidence is.
Interesting, do I understand it correctly then, that Anarcho-Capitalists/Austrians/Libertarians (make your choice) don’t recognise usucapio/prescription?
The reason I set up this odd scenario is that in a way, I believe this to be the conundrum libertarians are currently facing. All of the allodial title in the world is currently owned by states, except, I gather, some land in Antarctica. Even in countries such as France which claim to allow allodial title ownership, this land would still be subject to compulsory purchase by the state in certain circumstances. These states often take the form of long-standing corporations or families, and the “prevailing legal authority” of international law recognises these claims. We all know that states have taken their land by force at some point in the past, but if the criterion is that the tenants must be descendents of the victims of land theft, and that the owners must be the same persons who committed the theft, I find it extremely hard to understand in what instance legal “secession” of libertarians from the state would be possible under Austro-libertarian theory, except perhaps of certain Amerindians.
“Secession” essentially refers to tenants’ assertion of ownership of allodial title to the land in opposition to its current owner. Currently, in democracies, the state has voluntarily provided us with a means by which we could seize control of the means of government, and could therefore sell off the state’s allodial land piecemeal. But even if this could somehow be successful, wouldn’t we just be swapping a small number of states with a larger number? Couldn’t these states be just as tyrannical as the present state, if not more so? The landowner has no need for “coercion” as he can eject any tenant at will if the tenant has no contract, and most of us don’t. A contract with an allodial title holder is essentially a “social contract”, which most of us deny the legality of except when explicitly codified and signed. If the answer is that competition between allodial title holders will improve the standards offered in social contracts, I would ask: "Why hasn’t this already occurred when there are 200 or more holders of allodial title in the world, none of which acts in a manner which I would describe as ‘non-tyrannical’? ".
And if the state decides to turn up at the front door of each of us tomorrow, offering us to sign the social contract (by which all our property will be regarded as property of the state to be used for the state’s ends at will) or to be immediately deported, is that truly legal under Austro-libertarian theory? Are we really all just trespassers on the government’s land in the absence of a social contract?
Acquisition per usucapionem is similar but not identical to acquisition per praescriptionem and I don’t see why they would be incompatible with libertarianism*.* Neither applies to this scenario anyhow though.
Allodial (inalienable) title to land isn’t compatible with libertarian law. The phrase “social contract” is an absurd legal fiction. Even civil law accounts for the difference between ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’. A “land thief” can make no coherent objection to being stolen from. A state can acquire nothing except through the initiation of aggression.
You are talking about two different “people” making legal claims to land. A proper arbitration would not seek to determine merely first possession, but which competing claim is strongest. Any state’s claim to land is necessarily illegitimate, so the land may be considered unowned and homesteaded. This homesteader’s claim would then be strongest until he transferred title or an original owner is discovered. This original owner (or their descendants) must be the owner of that actual piece of land though. There must be actual evidence of the ownership, so saying that a certain Indian tribe roamed a vast area centuries ago is not sufficient.
For your question: you would be right to shoot your visitor in the face. He is a representative of a well-known criminal institution threatening to rob you. If you feel I missed something important, point it out. You are making a lot of silly conclusions out of this.