You have to define who owns what. Who owns the buffalo? Does the individual own the buffalo? Does the community own the bufallo? Has the buffalo been homesteaded? Who owns the land on which the buffalo roam?
I don’t know of an individual who has done so. But we do know that the US Army, aka the government, pretty much slaughtered the buffalo.
What do you mean?
Can we say that usage can generate ownership? That is, if I have been using a spring of water, even though I have not improved it, do I have a kind of ownership? In other words, I have the right to usage. This would solve the problem of pollution of a spring by a newcomer. If the unimproved spring is unowned, then we have no solution to the problem of the newcomer who intends to pollute. This seems to fit with what Rothbard wrote here:
"The “first ownership to first use” principle for natural resources is also popularly called the “homesteading principle.” If each man owns the land that he “mixes his labor with,” then he owns the product of that mixture, and he has the right to exchange property titles with other, similar producers…
Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the old-fashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right. Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homesteaded X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action…
It should be clear that the same theory should apply to air pollution. If A is causing pollution of B’s air, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before B’s property was developed. For example, if a factory owned by A polluted originally unused property, up to a certain amount of pollutant X, then A can be said to have homesteaded a pollution easement of a certain degree and type."
Can we apply the same principle to the herd of buffalo. That is, if I had been using the herd for food and along comes a newcomer who desires to kill them all for their skins, does this violate my right to usage?
If we say that I have no right to the bison until I kill or capture one, then we open up the possiblity of activity in this form: “You must pay me money or I will kill all of the buffalo.” or “Pay me now or I will dump this arsenic in the river that you use for fishing and drinking.” etc. This seems like an immoral extortion.
I think common sense dicatates that such activity is wrong and can be combatted with force. That is, the native american had every right to use force to prevent the whites from wanton destruction of the buffalo (or the mustangs).
If the natives were morally required to pay “bison protection money” to the feds, the Great White Father could have demanded an unlimited amount of money in exchange for not slaughtering the bison and could have bled the natives dry–so accomplishing the same prurpose: the destruction of the native population.
Required, but not sufficient.
He has to “mix labor”, as Rothbard mentioned. But yeah, the spring would have to be homesteaded, else, no one would have a right to it.
But do you own the herd? Your question doesn’t tell me whether or not you own the herd, it only tells me that you use the herd. This is what makes your questions difficult to answer. You have to define who owns what.
Who owns the land on which those bison roam?
It may be wrong and can be combated with force, but it doesn’t mean you have the right to do so. The native american part is tricky. Did they own the land? Assuming they own land an used it as a hunting ground of buffalo, then yes, they would have the right to defend their property from the US Army or anyone else.
Yes.
My question is about unowned land and unowned herds. I am interested in the great plains of the native americans and their situation of nomadic life and hunting.
Would they be justified in using force against white men who intended to destroy the bison?
I do not know how they could come to own the herd or the land in this context. Actually, that is my question. It seems as though the prior usage of the land as hunting ground and the herd as prey establishes a kind of ownership or right to usage. The reason I say this is that it seems “just” for them to resist the white slaughterers with force, if necessary.
It seems to me that if Rothbardian ethics would say that it is legitimate for the whites to slaughter the bison but not for the natives to resist with force, then this reveals a deficiency in the Rothbardian system.
They wouldn’t have the right to do so since they don’t own the land nor the herds, as you mention.
Yeah, as long as they mix their labor with it. But you say they don’t own it.
try to locate some tribal elders of plains indians. maybe they could give you some information from their point of view.
Short question: Can there be homestead by proxy?
Long question: Is man the only creature that can homestead? Suppose that i own an elephant. It has my name and mark of claim clearly on it, like a branded cow. I let this elephant roam miles around the unowned plains. Does it follow since i own the resource that was used to change the condition of the land by dung, crushing vegetation, ect. that i have homesteaded that land?
Or is it only at that moment when the elephant is at that one place that i own it. If so, all one would have to do is claim by a mark or ID all the buffalo one could find, before someone kills them all. And they would have to compensate you for an invasion of your property. But if I own those buffalo, am i responsible for what they do, must i compensate other property owners for damages done by them? Or do I homestead the land on which they roam?
One shoots one of my buffalo, on land that is clearly not homesteaded, can he claim that it is now his land by A) claiming the buffalo as an invasion of his claim on property so force is justified or B) claim since his labor ( killing the buffalo ) has changed that condition of land he owns the land that the buffalo fell on?
But, we’re talking about a free society, are we not? It is more likely that this territory would have been fully privatized by the individuals discovering it.
Well, it would be a social contract. The animals that occupy a hunting grounds are probably not domesticated, and so migratory cycles are assumed to be part of their lifestyle. If a bison goes from one’s territory into another, under what right does the first lay claim to the bison? Well, he might lay claim, but how does he purport to lure the bison back? It is obviously more trouble than its worth if by doing it you are antagonizing your neighbor. There is no reason why you couldn’t change your own property to provide a habitat that is more appealing to any given animal species. But, nobody lays immediate claim to any of the wild animals on their territory.
In Spain, I don’t demand my neighbor to return the rabbits which ran into his property. I assume they are lost, but there are plenty of other rabbits to hunt and other rabbits will make their way to my property anyways, meaning that there will also be targets available. The case is the same for all other animals.
That said, the concept is not abstract. Privatized hunting grounds exist, and there are no quarrels on the ownership of animals.
I’ve been to Indian casinos. They support private property rights. If you don’t believe me, try stealing something from there. 
Following Rothbard here:
“Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homesteaded X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action…”
I am suggesting that the prior usage of the herd is a form of homesteading and that the newcomer’s wanton slaughter of the herd is a form of aggression.
It seems clear to me that the natives are justified in using force to protect their livelihood. I am simply asking whether the Rothbardian system allows for this. If it does not, in my mind it is deficient because it would allow someone to engage in senseless destruction of anothers livelihood whether it be a spring of water or the air he or she breathes.
Perhaps the aggressor wishes to poison the ground that grows the native plants upon which I forage. In a limited view of property, I must allow him to do so, unless I can afford to pay him off. This is unacceptible, since it would allow him to make it much more difficult for me to live for no othe reason than his own whim and sadistic pleasure.
I submit that I have the right to destroy this aggressor, if need be. This would be true in a Randian sense, I think, and it is certainly be true in a common sense.
Actually, I think that the quote from Rothbard above implies this very idea. Is Rothbard claiming that the developer owns the air through which the sound waves travel?
If someone built a machine next door to me that consumed oxygen at such a fast rate that he would deprive me of that life-essential element, I would certainly be justified in stopping him from so doing. Yet I cannot say that I own the air.
In the same way I don’t own the bison herd.
Maybe the question boils down to what it means to “mix one’s labor with it”. There is a broader view here:
I don’t think the scenarios are analogous. My contention, that you implicitly deny, is that the Native Americans do own the land on which they hunt, and they have the right to hunt the buffalo on it, by homestead.
OK. On what basis do you say that the natives own the land?
“If you don’t believe me, try stealing”
did you steal something?
i was referring to a previous posting on another thread where someone had mentioned the that the native americans never actually homesteaded any land but rather were non-renting tennants - nomads, iow.
i dont know what historical views on land ownership from a native american point of view were.
I’m using the scenarios you have given.
Please explain. I am not assuming that they own the land. You asserted that they do own the land. On what basis could they be said to own the land?
It does not seem that they would own the land, or the bison, on a strict labor theory principle.
I am wondering about the possibility of broadening the labor theory principle and I am wondering if Rothbard did this in the article quoted above.
The issue is similar to that of water rights. If I have a farm on a river and use some of teh river water for irrigation, can another farmer move in upstream and use all of the water? If not, does this imply that I own the river? Do I own the water that passes through my farm? Do I own it after it moves on downstream? Did I own it before it got to my farm, when it was still upstream?
These issues seem to imply some kind of usage right apart from the labor theory of property.
Well considering the us constitution is based on a Iroquois tradition… sounds like hogwash to me. Nomads don’t build longhouses do they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Influence_on_the_United_States
Here again, Rothbard seems to be talking about a usage-theory of ownership. Maybe my confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the labor theory of ownership. I have assumed that the labor needed to result in improvement.
property denotes just(ice) possession. people possess things and they also possess their own self. a person picks up a stick. they control it, it is their just property, they possess it, they had homesteaded it by the act. the person may use it, discard it, sell it, trade it, make a bow, make a rocking chair, or throw it into the river.
of course there is a certain degree of freedom present in what individuals are able to do with their own possessions as coercion is a problem enacted by criminals (which doesn’t exclude government coercion). at times in history, people, being property, and thus in possession of their own self were bought and sold as goods on the market and that’s when liberty is really getting hammered. coercion takes away freedoms and property control and thus liberty is deterred by such unjust force.