I am trying to understand the status of wilderness wildlife in a free society from a natural rights perspective. In particular, I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)..
It would seem that, in a free society, there would be private property, common property, and nonproperty--things not owned by anyone. Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent.
A common spring or watering hole in the wilderness would classify as non-property in that it was not created by anyone. Thus it would come under the control of no one. What then could stop one user from polluting the spring?
If we view the pollution of the spring by my neighbor as the prevention of my use of the spring, then my neighbor is infringing on my right to liberty. It would seem I would be justified in using force to stop him from polluting the spring. But why?
It would seem that wildlife that live in the wilderness would classify as nonproperty in that noone could lay claim to them until they had appropriated them by usage. Someone who shot and killed all of the buffalo and left them to rot would be preventing me from appropriating unowned property, just as if someone came and set fire to the wild forest that I had hoped to harvest for timber.
Can we view this type of activity as an infringement on my liberty? Am I justifed in using force to stop him?
twistedbydsign99:If you kill all the buffalo for sport you starve to death, nature reboot, human being failed due to stupidity :). Likewise letting someone else kill off the food supply or pollute the only water supply is foolish, you should expel that person from the area. Use as much force as required.
If you kill all the buffalo for sport you starve to death, nature reboot, human being failed due to stupidity :). Likewise letting someone else kill off the food supply or pollute the only water supply is foolish, you should expel that person from the area. Use as much force as required.
Sounds like a very dangerous thing to advocate. Ostracism is one thing, but you're talking about initiating force.
twistedbydsign99: William Green:Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent. I agree and that any decision to bar new users from the path all the owners must agree. However if this path is the only navigatable path, such as a path through a high mountain pass, to deny passage to anyone is an act of war.
William Green:Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent.
I agree and that any decision to bar new users from the path all the owners must agree. However if this path is the only navigatable path, such as a path through a high mountain pass, to deny passage to anyone is an act of war.
Again, a very slippery slope here. The person who is "barring" new users from his mountain path is not aggressing against anyone, so they have no right to use any kind of force against him.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Justin Spahr-Summers:Sounds like a very dangerous thing to advocate. Ostracism is one thing, but you're talking about initiating force.
In common areas and with someone unwilling to reason you have little choice in this situation. Don't forget that force comes in more than one form. I would say claiming all of a necessity of life is an act of aggression.
William Green:I am trying to understand the status of wilderness wildlife in a free society from a natural rights perspective. In particular, I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)...
The actual events are that the US Army, which is an arm of the government of the United States of America, slaughtered most of the buffalo and enslaved, or otherwise violated the rights, of most Indians. Also, let's be clear that wildlife is non-owned animal life; in other words, no one owns them, thus, they can be homesteaded/domesticated.
Btw, it is difficult an time consuming for an individual to shoot millions of buffalo.
William Green:It would seem that, in a free society, there would be private property, common property, and nonproperty--things not owned by anyone. Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent.
Common property is also private property. Property can have multiple owners, and/or many users.
William Green:A common spring or watering hole in the wilderness would classify as non-property in that it was not created by anyone. Thus it would come under the control of no one. What then could stop one user from polluting the spring?
I suppose that what you saying is that people use a spring then abandon it. Therefore, that spring can now be homesteaded by someone else. However, you need define whether or not the spring is homesteaded, and thus, owned, or not. The owner could rightfully stop the user from polluting, but nothing could stop the owner from polluting.
William Green:If we view the pollution of the spring by my neighbor as the prevention of my use of the spring, then my neighbor is infringing on my right to liberty. It would seem I would be justified in using force to stop him from polluting the spring. But why?
You have to define who owns the spring. If you and your neighbor are co-owners of the spring, then there is nothing that you can do to stop him from doing so, unless there is an agreement/contract that prevents him from doing so. But if your neighbor is the owner of the spring, but you are merely a user, then you do not have the right to stop him from polluting. Unless, there was an agreement/contract that prevented him from doing so.
William Green:It would seem that wildlife that live in the wilderness would classify as nonproperty in that noone could lay claim to them until they had appropriated them by usage. Someone who shot and killed all of the buffalo and left them to rot would be preventing me from appropriating unowned property, just as if someone came and set fire to the wild forest that I had hoped to harvest for timber.
Actually, by shooting the animal, the shooter has homesteaded the animal. You could appropriate it, however, if you bought the animal from him, or if he abandoned it and you then homesteaded the animal.
William Green:Can we view this type of activity as an infringement on my liberty? Am I justifed in using force to stop him?
No. See above.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
William Green: Thanks for your reply, but I am interested in the question of vast, unappropriated lands, as was the case in the early history of the US or as would be the case if all public lands were returned to the state nonownership.
Thanks for your reply, but I am interested in the question of vast, unappropriated lands, as was the case in the early history of the US or as would be the case if all public lands were returned to the state nonownership.
The state can't rightfully own anything. So people can go an homestead government-"owned" lands.
William Green:In addition, I think that even with private land ownership we have the question of whether one can lure wildlife to his property from a nrighbor's to kill them. Wildlife typically range across boundaries of land ownership and so it would seem to be diffiult to say who owns them, if anyone.
Wildlife, by definition, are animals that are not owned. Thus, your neighbor cannot lay claim to it.
William Green: It would be possible to kill most of the elk. What if one used poison bait on public or unowned lands or helicopters and snipers, for example. The fundamental question remains--what to do with unowned wildlife and how to prevent its wanton destruction.
It would be possible to kill most of the elk. What if one used poison bait on public or unowned lands or helicopters and snipers, for example. The fundamental question remains--what to do with unowned wildlife and how to prevent its wanton destruction.
William Green:I'm trying to answer the fundamental philosophical question. I am not interested in particulars. But in fact, wanton destruction of wildlife has occurred and continues to occur, though on a limited scale.
It has mostly occurred in state-owned land or that the state has prevented people from owning. For example, African elephants.
William Green:My question is whether there is any way to prevent this in a free society, in other words, is the use of force legitimate in order ot prevent it.
You only have rights over your properties. You cannot prevent someone else from using his land/animals, or laying claim to unowned land/animals.
William Green:Perhaps it is not. Maybe the only solution is to "pay off" the potential destroyer. Maybe it is simply a conflict of interests. One man wants to destroy a herd of bison and leave them to rot, another wishes to use them for food. Maybe the only legitimate recourse the second man has is to offer money to the first in exchange for the right to eat the animals. But this seems strange, since the first did not own them in the first place.
The destroyer owns them by homesteading them by shooting them.
William Green:Despite the present day unlikeliness of such scenarios, it is useful to examine such questions. In fact, modern hunting regulations aim to accomplish exactly this goal. It would seem that such regulations are iliigitimate, since they arise from the state. But in the absence of the state, is there any way to prevent the destruction of unowned resources?
In fact, modern hunting regulations aim to accomplish exactly this goal. It would seem that such regulations are iliigitimate, since they arise from the state. But in the absence of the state, is there any way to prevent the destruction of unowned resources?
By paying someone to not do something.
William Green:If you like, we can use the forest example. Suppose an arsonist intends to set fire to and burn a vast, unowned tract of forest land that I am planning to harvest for timber. Do I have any legitimate way to prevent him from doing so? Must I pay him off, or would I be justified in using force to stop him?
In a free society, where one cannot infringe upon another persons rights, could one not argue to the community at large that hunting the buffalo to extinction infringes on their ability to hunt them as well. Would that be a successful argument in this situation?
The philosophical question has torn me up quite a bit. I don't believe government should infringe with the laws it currently has, but at the same time, what is to stop someone from hunting a species to extinction.
In the end, I always come to personal responsibility. As an example, I could have six kids, be dad of the year and demand handouts from the government because of it.... or, I could have 1 kid, be dad of the year, and make enough money to support my family. It's all about the choices we make.
Justin:In a free society, where one cannot infringe upon another persons rights, could one not argue to the community at large that hunting the buffalo to extinction infringes on their ability to hunt them as well. Would that be a successful argument in this situation?
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?
Justin:The philosophical question has torn me up quite a bit. I don't believe government should infringe with the laws it currently has, but at the same time, what is to stop someone from hunting a species to extinction.
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.
Justin:In the end, I always come to personal responsibility. As an example, I could have six kids, be dad of the year and demand handouts from the government because of it.... or, I could have 1 kid, be dad of the year, and make enough money to support my family. It's all about the choices we make.
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.
William Green:Can we say that usage can generate ownership?
Required, but not sufficient.
William Green: 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....
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.
William Green: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... 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?
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.
William Green: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.
Who owns the land on which those bison roam?
William Green: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).
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.
William Green: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.
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.
William Green: 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?
They wouldn't have the right to do so since they don't own the land nor the herds, as you mention.
William Green: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.
Yeah, as long as they mix their labor with it. But you say they don't own it.
William Green: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.
1) How so?2) You say that the Native Americans don't own the land nor the animals, so could they have the right of property over it/them? 3) Why do you keep saying "whites"? More accurately, it was the various governments and their armies that did the slaughtering. Besides, does your line of questioning not apply to non-whites? There were tribes of Native Americans who also killed the herds of other tribes.
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?
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
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.
In addition, I think that even with private land ownership we have the question of whether one can lure wildlife to his property from a nrighbor's to kill them. Wildlife typically range across boundaries of land ownership and so it would seem to be diffiult to say who owns them, if anyone.
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.
Economic Thought (Latest Post): Don't Be Fooled by GDP
sthomper: try to locate some tribal elders of plains indians. maybe they could give you some information from their point of view.
I've been to Indian casinos. They support private property rights. If you don't believe me, try stealing something from there. :D
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap