In a recording I heard, Rothbard argues that conservationists who are really for their cause should stop complaining about the cutting down of the virgin rainforest, buy it for themselves and preserve it. My question is from who? Obviously the government has no right to demand money for the forests, so thats out of the question. And how would the greeners homestead the forest? In this case, homesteading seems to be doing nothing to it. The very purpose is to NOT mix your labor with the raw material.
How would the market provide nature preserves? Something thats obviously a valuable good.
I havent been able to find this anywhere around the site. Roderick Long briefly mentions it in a lecture, but he only skims through it as well. Thoughts? Ideas? Sources?
Hey, this is a private residence man...
Fencing it off is one way to begin homesteading it. Making nature trails, marking off smaller areas and building things like bridges, observation towers and information centers would further develop it. Just how much of that is necessary to make title of ownership legitimate, I will conveniently label a "continuum problem" and go to bed. Hopefully someone else has better or more thorough ideas , because I'm also curious.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
"Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin worked exactly this way. While everyone is of course familiar with his flamboyant TV shows and his tragic death, little is known about his conservation efforts.
Instead of pestering governments to pass more legislation to ban this activity or close off that parcel of land to humans, he set up a privately owned and financed foundation that actually buys pristine tracts of lands to leave them "as they are". Founding is also provided to fence off the area and/or hire security guards: after all we are talking private property here.
Of course it isn't perfect, but surely work better than government-run preserves. I live litterally surrounded by them and it's unbelievable how badly they are run. Even where the park management is known to be conscious (ie they empty the trash bins regulary and the paths are not overgrown) there are immense problems. Recently the introduced a group of bears bought (of course at non-market prices) from Slovenia. The park guards assured us the animals have radio collars and are closely monitored, yet they seem to have somehow freed themselves from their hi-tech chains and now are roaming at large, more often than not outside the park boundaries and gorging themselves on (privately owned) sheep and goats. Of course it's a very serious criminal offense to shoot one of the brutes (though high power rifles are verboten around here) and park authorities have already set up a fund (guess who's paying?) to repay the sheep owners at very handsome rates for political reasons. I had a talk with one of my biologist colleagues who actually worked on a bear conservation project and he decried the effort as "badly run as it can be": these bears are not afraid of man in the least and during the mandatory quarantine period were fed sheep carcasses exclusively instead of the customary omnivore diet.
So you see, thanks to government-sponsored parks I also have furry parasites to look out for...
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
mark111: And how would the greeners homestead the forest? In this case, homesteading seems to be doing nothing to it. The very purpose is to NOT mix your labor with the raw material.
And how would the greeners homestead the forest? In this case, homesteading seems to be doing nothing to it. The very purpose is to NOT mix your labor with the raw material.
The same way that you homestead a forest for logging. You only own as much of the forest as you are actually using for logging. If someone cuts down a tree that you haven't go to it yet, you hadn't homesteaded it yet. Though they'd have to build their own roads to get to it.
You own as much of the forest as a nature reserve as you actually use. If you build roads and charge for admission, that could be a very large area. Or it could be a private reserve, a few square miles around your house.
I think the point here is that you are not perserving nature for its own sake, but only to be enjoyed(or atleast monitered) by humans.
Dr Long (and I think Mr Chernikov in a blog post of his; Hoppe's approach is not too different either) both resolve the issue by making appropriation a matter of incorporating unowned resources into a praxeological scheme, i.e. one in which the agent intends to put the resources to use. So, whilst appropriation will require physical alterations to serve as objective indicators of appropriation, these will vary upon local standards (e.g. fences for conservations, planting land for farms &c.) The point is to try and not determine these things a priori. They cannot be so determined; natural law is strongly context-based even if guided by principle. And this is its greatest virtue. IMO, appropriation in a praxeological sense also resolves the difficult problem of wills, as actions can reasonably extend some time after death.
Thank you, those are all great posts, I haven't thought of it that way.
Does anyone possibly have any writings of Long or Hoppe that I could read on this topic? I searched all kinds of keywords on mises.org and was unable to find anything.
I can't remember specific blogposts by Long, but you might try his old blog and his new blog:
http://praxeology.net/unblogarchive.htm
http://praxeology.net/blog/
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
I thought about this a bit. Solutions such as setting up small huts or lodges for tourists, studying the ecosystem over a given area routinely, establishing pathways, building viewing towers at key areas all seem legitimate, but I've never bought the idea of simply 'fencing off' something to claim it as your own.
By fencing off land while not actually making any of the improvements mentio.ned above on it, it seems to be that vast tracts of land can be secured all in the same of 'nature reserves'.
Yeah, you need both. Fencing off is a way to stake a claim, but if you don't have the means or intention of developing it in the near future, the claim is invalid.
Making a nature preserve worked well for David Hellyer:
http://www.amazon.com/At-Forests-Edge-Memoir-Physician-Naturalist/dp/0295979151/
His main mistake was his assumption that giving his park to the government would be a good way to keep it around after he died. The Hellyer's spent many years in court trying to get NW trek back because of government mismanagement.
~don
I don't really believe the whole "homesteading" arguement. The idea that if I buy 3,000 acres of land and I live on just ten acres then, basically under the homesteading arguement, because I'm not using the other 2,990 acres of land anyone who comes and settles on them can claim that acreage for themselves. I don't think so. The "mixing your labor with the land" arguement works if it is virgin land that no one has ever settled on before but that isn't the case in today world.
Putting up a fence may likewise be an unacceptable arguement for someone who truly wants a tract of land to remain as natural as possible wouldn't want anything to restrict the movement of the animals who live there. A fence would do just that.
So what is the solution? Its the same thing we have today -- ownership titles. If a person desires to take 1,000 acres of pristine forest and turn it into a private nature reserve they merely have to go to the owner and purchase that land. No homesteading, no fense, nothing more than a document stating I sold it to you and now you have title to that land along with the physical boundries of that land. But what if the government owns that land? What is a libertarian to do? You buy it from the government.
Say the US government puts X National Park up for sale. Can you legitimately buy that land? I believe you can because the "rightful owners" are no longer alive. Those indian tribes that once claimed portions of that land have long since gone. Yes, we have indian "tribes" nowadays but I contend they are no longer true native American tribes as they once exisited. And we cannot accurately trace them back to who actually owned the land so many years ago. Therefore, unfortunately, I feel the government does "own" the land. So what about that national park? Some of it is being purchased by private developers, some by environmentalist but all of them have one thing in common. The land they purchased from the government is not homesteaded, their labor has yet to be mixed with the land, but they do have a document -- a title -- saying they own that land. And that's all you need.
And the great thing about titles is that they too can be challenged in court.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
That isn't even the homesteading argument. Land you've bought is all yours (unless you abandon it), provided the original owner had just title to it. The homesteading argument (requiring fencing and, as noted above, the intention and/or means to put the resource to some use, and pertaining to scarce resources) explains original appropriation only. Exchanging titles over it is a perfectly legitimate practice (indeed, Rothbard reformulates contract as the transfer of titles to property.) The point to grasp is that homesteading arguments serve the purpose of explaining how land may come to be owned in the first place (i.e. why a title is or is not legitimate), and sets clear limits over what one may or may not own. Merely staking a claim, for example, to the moon, will not establish the sort of link required for ownership to arise. The government cannot legitimately sell anything because it never bought nor homesteaded anything in the first place; or rather more precisely, it cannot pocket the proceeds from the sales as these belong justly to the taxpayer.
That is true, but much of the land that is held today is not held by just title. It is held by government decree in many cases, or through title that originated from government decree in many others. So if a piece of land is "owned" but is not being used, it would be right to investigate the title. If it has never been used, then it is not truly owned and ought to be available for homesteading.
kingmonkey:I don't really believe the whole "homesteading" arguement.
Then point to the flaw in current theories of rational ethics which would negate the homesteading principle.
kingmonkey:The idea that if I buy 3,000 acres of land and I live on just ten acres then, basically under the homesteading arguement, because I'm not using the other 2,990 acres of land anyone who comes and settles on them can claim that acreage for themselves. I don't think so.
Well I do think so. If you aren't using the land in any way other than claiming "title" to it, and it in no way constitutes the product of your labor or the labor product of another from whom you've obtained it voluntarily, it is unowned and open for homesteading. If it was at one point someone's legitimate property, their labor product no longer exists in the land and so their claim to it has been nullified by that fact, as has yours if your sole claim to it is that they traded it to you. It's precisely your sort of thinking that enables the exploitation of labor; by creating artificial scarcity in the means of production, you create the very conditions that cause people to call into question all claims of property.
kingmonkey:The "mixing your labor with the land" arguement works if it is virgin land that no one has ever settled on before but that isn't the case in today world.
It works wherever the land does not already constitute an existing labor product, which is quite a bit of land at present.
kingmonkey:Putting up a fence may likewise be an unacceptable arguement for someone who truly wants a tract of land to remain as natural as possible wouldn't want anything to restrict the movement of the animals who live there. A fence would do just that.
So? In what way do they have any sort of a legitimate claim over the land? By what right do they use and threaten to use force against other individuals attempting to make use of that land?
kingmonkey:So what is the solution?
You've failed to prove that there's a problem that needs to be solved, so it's a little early to talk of solutions.
kingmonkey:Its the same thing we have today -- ownership titles.
Granted by whom and by what right?
kingmonkey:If a person desires to take 1,000 acres of pristine forest and turn it into a private nature reserve they merely have to go to the owner and purchase that land. No homesteading, no fense, nothing more than a document stating I sold it to you and now you have title to that land along with the physical boundries of that land.
If it's pristine forest, it isn't owned by anyone.
kingmonkey:But what if the government owns that land? What is a libertarian to do? You buy it from the government.
The government isn't a legitimate owner of anything. Anyone may homestead so-called "government property".
kingmonkey:Say the US government puts X National Park up for sale. Can you legitimately buy that land?
No, because the US government doesn't actually own it. If any do have a legitimate claim by homesteading to it, it certainly isn't "the government". I'd basically be buying something from a group of people who don't actually own it. Worse still, if there are legitimate owners, it'd be no different from me buying your house from some random person on the street.
kingmonkey:I believe you can because the "rightful owners" are no longer alive. Those indian tribes that once claimed portions of that land have long since gone. Yes, we have indian "tribes" nowadays but I contend they are no longer true native American tribes as they once exisited. And we cannot accurately trace them back to who actually owned the land so many years ago.
Any who've lost their property to the predations of the state should seek restitution from it. If what they owned was homesteaded by others after their (or their ancestors') own labor product had ceased to exist in the land, it is now someone else's legitimate property and they have no claim to it.
kingmonkey:Therefore, unfortunately, I feel the government does "own" the land. So what about that national park? Some of it is being purchased by private developers, some by environmentalist but all of them have one thing in common. The land they purchased from the government is not homesteaded, their labor has yet to be mixed with the land, but they do have a document -- a title -- saying they own that land. And that's all you need.
So if I write down on a piece of paper that I own the Moon, that's all I need to be in the right if I start shooting people for trying to colonize it?
kingmonkey:And the great thing about titles is that they too can be challenged in court.
Government courts, no doubt.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Rich333: Then point to the flaw in current theories of rational ethics which would negate the homesteading principle.
I'm not negating the homesteading principle totally. Indeed, if there is some piece of land that no one has ever laid claim to then of course homesteading a piece of that land will make it your property.
Rich333: Well I do think so. If you aren't using the land in any way other than claiming "title" to it, and it in no way constitutes the product of your labor or the labor product of another from whom you've obtained it voluntarily, it is unowned and open for homesteading. If it was at one point someone's legitimate property, their labor product no longer exists in the land and so their claim to it has been nullified by that fact, as has yours if your sole claim to it is that they traded it to you. It's precisely your sort of thinking that enables the exploitation of labor; by creating artificial scarcity in the means of production, you create the very conditions that cause people to call into question all claims of property.
Yes it does constitute the product of my labor. I spent my time and my labor to save up the money for that land and spent my property -- my money which came as a direct result of my labor -- for that land. The previous owner did the same thing. The idea that because someone isn't using the land somehow makes it free for anyone to grab is ridiculous. If I spend my money to purchase a piece of land it is my land whether you like it or not. I don't have to work the land just to lay claim to it. A transfer of title makes it my land. Exactly how does "my way of thinking" lead to the exploitation of labor? I'd be most interested to hear how owning a piece of property makes me an exploiter. Perhaps I use my land every once in a while to go hunting. Or perhaps I like to take long walks on my property. There are any number of reasons why someone would purchase a large tract of land but not using it doesn't make it free for someone else to grab.
Rich333: It works wherever the land does not already constitute an existing labor product, which is quite a bit of land at present.
No, because people that own the land have laid claim to it because they have purchased it from the previous owner. You seem like you want something for nothing, unfortunately, that's not how things work. There are people out there, a lot of them, who have spent years buying a piece of property. Now, whether or not that land is currently being used does not make it any less their land. They have a legal claim to that property because they have used their own resources to acquire it.
Rich333: So? In what way do they have any sort of a legitimate claim over the land? By what right do they use and threaten to use force against other individuals attempting to make use of that land?
Because they bought it. Are we to assume that if you went out and bought a vehicle and parked it on the road, never driving it, that it is no longer your vehicle? Certainly not. Just because you no longer use it doesn't mean it isn't your vehicle. You have simply chosen not to use it any longer.
Rich333: Granted by whom and by what right?
By the previous owner because they owned it. That's what right.
Rich333: If it's pristine forest, it isn't owned by anyone.
No, it's pristine forest that was owned by someone who decided not to cut the trees down but never let anyone on the property. Now someone else has come along and wants to turn it into a nature preserve but allow a small number of people every week, month or year come visit it.
Rich333: The government isn't a legitimate owner of anything. Anyone may homestead so-called "government property".
Agreed.
Rich333: Government courts, no doubt.
Government courts, private courts, any courts. Of course since we are talking about a libertarian society we are naturally going to have to assume private courts. Duh.
kingmonkey: Yes it does constitute the product of my labor. I spent my time and my labor to save up the money for that land and spent my property -- my money which came as a direct result of my labor -- for that land. The previous owner did the same thing. The idea that because someone isn't using the land somehow makes it free for anyone to grab is ridiculous. If I spend my money to purchase a piece of land it is my land whether you like it or not. I don't have to work the land just to lay claim to it. A transfer of title makes it my land. Exactly how does "my way of thinking" lead to the exploitation of labor? I'd be most interested to hear how owning a piece of property makes me an exploiter. Perhaps I use my land every once in a while to go hunting. Or perhaps I like to take long walks on my property. There are any number of reasons why someone would purchase a large tract of land but not using it doesn't make it free for someone else to grab.
I dont think something can be seen as your property simply because you spent time and labor saving up to purchase it. That seems like a very shakey ethic for ownership rights. I could save up money and start buying up a slew up things that go directly against the libertarian creed; babies, slaves, things already owned, the sun, square circles... all because I "spent my time and my labor to save up the money for" those things. I am of course not implying you would say these things, but am merely taking the concept to its logical extreme. It seems very close to what Kinsella describes as libertarian creationism.
kingmonkey: No, because people that own the land have laid claim to it because they have purchased it from the previous owner. You seem like you want something for nothing, unfortunately, that's not how things work. There are people out there, a lot of them, who have spent years buying a piece of property. Now, whether or not that land is currently being used does not make it any less their land. They have a legal claim to that property because they have used their own resources to acquire it.
I dont think it is approriate to call the government the previous owner when it was never even the present owner. The people who have been defrauded by the government into thinking that they are buying legitimately owned property should perhaps be reimbursed, but I still dont think this justifies an artificial scarcity created by the whole affair of government land and government selling of land.
kingmonkey: Because they bought it. Are we to assume that if you went out and bought a vehicle and parked it on the road, never driving it, that it is no longer your vehicle? Certainly not. Just because you no longer use it doesn't mean it isn't your vehicle. You have simply chosen not to use it any longer.
Who did they buy the land from? And what right does the person who they bought the land from have to that land? The car example doesnt really apply because cars are not natural resources. They are by default produced by the labor and toil of others and as a result always come into creation under the ownership of someone.
kingmonkey: By the previous owner because they owned it. That's what right.
Again, in all these cases, the previous owner is the state, an illegitimate owner for the reasons I think are correct above.
mark111: I dont think something can be seen as your property simply because you spent time and labor saving up to purchase it. That seems like a very shakey ethic for ownership rights. I could save up money and start buying up a slew up things that go directly against the libertarian creed; babies, slaves, things already owned, the sun, square circles... all because I "spent my time and my labor to save up the money for" those things. I am of course not implying you would say these things, but am merely taking the concept to its logical extreme. It seems very close to what Kinsella describes as libertarian creationism.
Sort of but no. Babies? Yeah, you can save up and buy a baby. There is nothing unethical about a person selling a baby they don't want. If I have child that I cannot take care of why shouldn't I give away or sell the baby to someone who would take care of it? It is a win-win-win situation for everyone. I have taken a burden (the baby I can't afford) and sold it to someone who can love and care for the child the correct way and the child grows up in a much better atmosphere than they would have with me. Of course you can't buy slaves because you can't enslave people, unless they've comitted a crime. If you can homestead a portion of the sun then why can't you sell your portion of the homesteaded property on the sun? The same thing applies to the moon. If you move to the moon and start a water mining factory that occupies fifty acres of moon surface why shouldn't you be able to sell the title you have to that property? And if someone stops mining for water on the moon and only uses 1 acre of the 50 they bought by what right does someone have to come and simply squat on any portion of their land and take it from them?
mark111: I dont think it is approriate to call the government the previous owner when it was never even the present owner. The people who have been defrauded by the government into thinking that they are buying legitimately owned property should perhaps be reimbursed, but I still dont think this justifies an artificial scarcity created by the whole affair of government land and government selling of land.
I'm not saying the government is the owner of that property. I've already conceeded that point. I'm not contending the state of parks and such. Go forth and settle on five acres of Grand Teton National Park. I'm talking about the buying and selling of legal titles to land. My issue is with the idea that someone can simply come to my land whether it is one acre or 100,000 and just assume ownership of it. By what right do they have to assume ownership of property I have purchased? If I went to 1,000 people each of whom owned 1 acre and purchased each acre of each person but only used 10 acres by what right does someone have to come and steal the other 990 acres of MY LAND that I legally bought from the previous owner? That is the issue I'm talking about.
mark111: Who did they buy the land from? And what right does the person who they bought the land from have to that land? The car example doesnt really apply because cars are not natural resources. They are by default produced by the labor and toil of others and as a result always come into creation under the ownership of someone.
Either you own something or you don't. If I bought land from someone title of that land transfer to me. It's just that simple. I'm not sure why you people keep trying to make it harder than it is. And if you want to get really "radical" then if you live in the US you better go find out the whole history of the land your house sits on because golly gee you might be living on stolen land! You could be a criminal transgressor!
kingmonkey: Sort of but no. Babies? Yeah, you can save up and buy a baby. There is nothing unethical about a person selling a baby they don't want. If I have child that I cannot take care of why shouldn't I give away or sell the baby to someone who would take care of it? It is a win-win-win situation for everyone. I have taken a burden (the baby I can't afford) and sold it to someone who can love and care for the child the correct way and the child grows up in a much better atmosphere than they would have with me. Of course you can't buy slaves because you can't enslave people, unless they've comitted a crime. If you can homestead a portion of the sun then why can't you sell your portion of the homesteaded property on the sun? The same thing applies to the moon. If you move to the moon and start a water mining factory that occupies fifty acres of moon surface why shouldn't you be able to sell the title you have to that property? And if someone stops mining for water on the moon and only uses 1 acre of the 50 they bought by what right does someone have to come and simply squat on any portion of their land and take it from them?
Agreed, Im fine with a baby market, but I was trying to explain it in a different context. It sounded to me like you were trying to say that ownership of something is justified simply because a transaction takes place or because someone tried to save up money to buy the item in question, which simply isnt true. Historical circumstances have to be considered.
kingmonkey: By what right do they have to assume ownership of property I have purchased?
By what right do they have to assume ownership of property I have purchased?
One example could be if you purchase this property from someone who themselves was never an owner, such as a government. Thus historical circumstances come into play and land titles and records are important. Thus if you buy Louisiana from the United States Government (or France) you have no right to Louisiana since the United States Government (or France) never had a right to Lousiana in the first place. You cannot transfer something you dont own.
kingmonkey: If I went to 1,000 people each of whom owned 1 acre and purchased each acre of each person but only used 10 acres by what right does someone have to come and steal the other 990 acres of MY LAND that I legally bought from the previous owner?
If I went to 1,000 people each of whom owned 1 acre and purchased each acre of each person but only used 10 acres by what right does someone have to come and steal the other 990 acres of MY LAND that I legally bought from the previous owner?
Absolutely none. Assuming those 1000 people are legitimate owners of their land within the context of what (I think) is grounds for legitimate land ownership. If they own the land rightfully, they can transfer the land rightfully to you.
kingmonkey: Either you own something or you don't. If I bought land from someone title of that land transfer to me. It's just that simple. I'm not sure why you people keep trying to make it harder than it is. And if you want to get really "radical" then if you live in the US you better go find out the whole history of the land your house sits on because golly gee you might be living on stolen land! You could be a criminal transgressor!
You either own something or you dont. But I dont think a piece of paper saying so is necessary or substantial enough to do so. Asides from that, no one has challenged ownership of the land under my home yet, or claimed that they lived here 150 years ago so... I think Im pretty safe.
KingMonkey, I think we all agree then. Homesteading is necessary to acquire land in the first place; subsequently titles can be exchanged.
Something I'd like to say on land bought by the state then worked by a private citizen; even if the State did not own this land (and assume that the land was either unowned or that the person it was taken from is long out of existence with no heirs), by applying one's labour to the land and purchasing it, I see no reason why one should not have the fullest right to it. if anything, the State owes that person a refund, for grabbing up land it had no right to, then charging for it!
kingmonkey:Yes it does constitute the product of my labor. I spent my time and my labor to save up the money for that land and spent my property -- my money which came as a direct result of my labor -- for that land. The previous owner did the same thing.
Paying for unowned land isn't a mixture of labor with, or use of, the land. There is no labor product in the land, nor any use of it, therefore it is unowned. If you paid money for it, you were defrauded by whomever you paid.
kingmonkey:The idea that because someone isn't using the land somehow makes it free for anyone to grab is ridiculous.
No, it's a consistent application of the homesteading principle. Property arises from usage and the mixture of labor with unused nature. If you aren't using it, and there's no labor product in the land, it isn't owned. To claim ownership of something unused and that does not constitute your labor product is an absurdity; it's completely contrary to the homesteading principle to make such a claim.
kingmonkey:If I spend my money to purchase a piece of land it is my land whether you like it or not. I don't have to work the land just to lay claim to it. A transfer of title makes it my land.
That is completely incompatible with homesteading. Legitimate "titles" can only exist in labor products and easements on usage. I could claim to own Mars, and sell it to you, but that doesn't make it yours.
kingmonkey:Exactly how does "my way of thinking" lead to the exploitation of labor? I'd be most interested to hear how owning a piece of property makes me an exploiter.
It's not ownership of legitimate property, it's forcible suppression of legitimate acts of homesteading of unused resources, creating an artificial scarcity in those unused resources. With such an artificial scarcity, options for labor are more limited than in a free market; instead of enterprising individuals being able to plant crops or raise cattle or build a home or business on that land, it is kept out of use, forcing them to seek out other means to maintain their own existence, or pay you a rent for use of land you do not legitimately own. This artificial limiting of options is no different from any of the other unjust measures to limit competition with established interests as found in state capitalism. Stacking the deck in favor of established interests is precisely why the state exists. It's what allows corporations to grow out of all proportion to what would be sustainable in a free market, consolidating wealth and power in the hands of ever fewer individuals at the top, none of whom have actually earned their position honestly. Instead of a situation where businesses are owned by labor, businesses are owned by capital. By labor I mean the productive class, those who use the economic means, voluntary exchange and the mixture of their labor with the world, and by capital I mean the political class, those who use the political means, threats and use of force to secure unearned profit. In a free market business would have to compete for employees, because the employment options, including self-employment options, would be abundant, but in state capitalism employment options are limited and so the balance of power is, again, shifted in favor of the established interests. This is precisely what gives rise to wage slavery in state capitalism, as opposed to honest wage-for-labor exchanges in a free market. It is precisely by keeping the means of production, those as yet unused resources which are still quite abundant, out of productive use, and the extracting of rents on their use in a modern-day version of serfdom, that the political class is able to maintain their positions of wealth and power out of all proportion to their actual productive efforts, if any.
kingmonkey:Perhaps I use my land every once in a while to go hunting. Or perhaps I like to take long walks on my property. There are any number of reasons why someone would purchase a large tract of land but not using it doesn't make it free for someone else to grab.
The examples you provide include usage and transformation through labor, though. In the hunting example it would be reasonable to assert ownership, as you've transformed unused nature into a hunting ground; it's essentially no different from the raising of cattle. In the long walks example, you're using it but aren't transforming it through your labor, except perhaps by creating a path from repeatedly walking over the same ground; you at least have an easement in usage for that purpose.
kingmonkey:No, because people that own the land have laid claim to it because they have purchased it from the previous owner.
What rightful claim did the previous owner have to the land? How is their claim still legitimate if their labor product is no longer in existence in the land, and no easement in usage has been maintained?
kingmonkey:You seem like you want something for nothing, unfortunately, that's not how things work.
I certainly want unused nature for no more than my own labor costs me. You're the one who wants something for nothing; you lay claim to tracts of land with no legitimate basis to do so.
kingmonkey:There are people out there, a lot of them, who have spent years buying a piece of property. Now, whether or not that land is currently being used does not make it any less their land. They have a legal claim to that property because they have used their own resources to acquire it.
Being defrauded of their money by someone falsely claiming ownership over a piece of land doesn't make the land their property. They should sue whoever sold them the unowned land for restitution.
kingmonkey:Because they bought it. Are we to assume that if you went out and bought a vehicle and parked it on the road, never driving it, that it is no longer your vehicle? Certainly not. Just because you no longer use it doesn't mean it isn't your vehicle. You have simply chosen not to use it any longer.
A vehicle is a product of labor, unused and untransformed land is not. All things decay though, so eventually the vehicle will break down, rust, and return to a natural state. The resulting unused resources are anyone's to claim. Have you not heard of abandonment?
kingmonkey:By the previous owner because they owned it. That's what right.
If no labor product exists in the land, nor any easement of usage upon it, by what right do they claim any sort of ownership of it?
kingmonkey:No, it's pristine forest that was owned by someone who decided not to cut the trees down but never let anyone on the property. Now someone else has come along and wants to turn it into a nature preserve but allow a small number of people every week, month or year come visit it.
Then previous "owner" was nothing more than an armed thug threatening to use and using violence against others to keep them from exercising their rightful liberty to homestead the land. This previous "owner" was also apparently a con-artist, as you can't sell what you do not legitimately own.
kingmonkey:Government courts, private courts, any courts. Of course since we are talking about a libertarian society we are naturally going to have to assume private courts. Duh.
Why would private courts decide in favor of those who have no legitimate claim to the land?
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