I am serious. Who has ownership over the stars? Can anyone claim ownership?
Schools are labour camps.
I have also been thinking about this. The answer is nobody.
Nature is unowned until it is homesteaded - after which it becomes property. As stars are giant balls of hot gas it's a bit difficult to "mix your labour with them".
Anyone who buys a "certificate of ownership" for a star has just bought a very expensive, but meaningless piece of paper.
Irish Liberty Forum
Would anybody dare answer my question?
First you might want to explain how it is even possible to destroy the sun.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
krazy kaju: Taking a stroll on the moon is not homesteading. Homesteading is, by definition, "mixing your labor with the land." A better question would be about the natures of contracts and property ownership. Take this as an example: say I homestead part of the moon and then sell it to someone on Earth. Later, I leave that plot of the moon to go back to Earth. Considering that nobody is on the moon and that the person who "owns" the plot doesn't actually work it, is it fair to say that that plot is actually owned or is it unowned since it is not worked?
Taking a stroll on the moon is not homesteading. Homesteading is, by definition, "mixing your labor with the land." A better question would be about the natures of contracts and property ownership. Take this as an example: say I homestead part of the moon and then sell it to someone on Earth. Later, I leave that plot of the moon to go back to Earth. Considering that nobody is on the moon and that the person who "owns" the plot doesn't actually work it, is it fair to say that that plot is actually owned or is it unowned since it is not worked?
I completely agree with you, as usual, Kaju. It would be fair to say that it is unowned.
But I recall reading something different in MES, that once labour is mixed with nature that it remains the owners' or his assigns' land. So, according to Rothbard, if Crusoe were to homestead some part of the island, abandon it for 50 years, then he could legitimately remove any person living on that land, as the land is Crusoe's "in perpetuity". This is probably one of the few things that I disagree on with Murray.
John hoffman://Nature is unowned until it is homesteaded - after which it becomes property. As stars are giant balls of hot gas it's a bit difficult to "mix your labour with them".// If I put my time and labour into spitting onto a field does this make it my property? What if i spit on something you claim to be your field?
Nope. You don't gain ownership of the ocean by pouring a tin of tomato juice in it.
scineram: So if aliens were about to destroy the sun we should accept it?
So if aliens were about to destroy the sun we should accept it?
Your question is another variant of the "lifeboat situation". Rothbard deals with these in a chapter of TEOL.
This also remids me of a different thread called Anarcho-capitalism defeated? where the OP constructed a hypothetical scenario involving a Star Trek transporter machine.
Frankly if aliens had the ability to destroy the sun then our pewny ammunition would hardly put up much of a fight in defending it.
MatthewWilliam: I completely agree with you, as usual, Kaju. It would be fair to say that it is unowned. But I recall reading something different in MES, that once labour is mixed with nature that it remains the owners' or his assigns' land. So, according to Rothbard, if Crusoe were to homestead some part of the island, abandon it for 50 years, then he could legitimately remove any person living on that land, as the land is Crusoe's "in perpetuity". This is probably one of the few things that I disagree on with Murray.
Why not exactly? If it's still part of their plans and they've mixed their labour with it, and it has hence become an extension of themself why isn't it legitimately their property? Why would time make any difference and what period of time has to pass before you can say it isn't theirs, any line your draw has to be entirely arbitrary. In any case what do you consider to be suitable, 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? In any case it shouldn't matter where the land is, you seem to point out that if it's on an uninhabited island it doesn't count and yet do you hold the same views for some land in the middle of country in England or the USA?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
My question about the moon was facetious.
The moon has not been homesteaded. The men who landed there pinned a flag in the lunar surface and took home some rocks. This is by no means bringing the land into productive use. Much like if the British found some new land, pinned the Union Jack in the ground, and took home some soil samples.
If I were to abandon my farm or my field then it would be unowned and up for grabs, no matter where it is. This is in contrast with what Rothbard writes in MES.
If we are delving into extremes, do you think that I can go about the forest, polishing each tree with my hankerchief, "mixing my labour" the forest, and declaring my ownership in perpetuity?
MatthewWilliam:If I were to abandon my farm or my field then it would be unowned and up for grabs, no matter where it is
And I disproved this in my last post, it simply isn't so.
MatthewWilliam:If we are delving into extremes, do you think that I can go about the forest, polishing each tree with my hankerchief, "mixing my labour" the forest, and declaring my ownership in perpetuity?
Unless you have problems with the homesteading principle in general as opposed to the whole "in perpetuity thing" this isn't an issue.
The rest of what I said you just ignored.
MatthewWilliam: My question about the moon was facetious. The moon has not been homesteaded. The men who landed there pinned a flag in the lunar surface and took home some rocks. This is by no means bringing the land into productive use. Much like if the British found some new land, pinned the Union Jack in the ground, and took home some soil samples.
Like Rockall?
MatthewWilliam: If I were to abandon my farm or my field then it would be unowned and up for grabs, no matter where it is. This is in contrast with what Rothbard writes in MES.
No it isn't. Nowhere does Rothbard suggest that land can't be abandoned. (But merely not using it for a while doesn't constitute abandonment)
GilesStratton: MatthewWilliam:If I were to abandon my farm or my field then it would be unowned and up for grabs, no matter where it is And I disproved this in my last post, it simply isn't so.
I don't think you disproved anything in your last post. Or perhaps its me who can't fathom what you're trying to say. In my mind it's crystal clear. If A doesn't want his land he can either:
After abandonment he can re-homestead it if he likes, if nobody has done so in the meantime. The moment the property has been abandoned it ceases being property, and becomes unowned again.
MatthewWilliam: GilesStratton: MatthewWilliam:If I were to abandon my farm or my field then it would be unowned and up for grabs, no matter where it is And I disproved this in my last post, it simply isn't so. I don't think you disproved anything in your last post. Or perhaps its me who can't fathom what you're trying to say. In my mind it's crystal clear. If A doesn't want his land he can either: Sell it to someone If nobody is willing to buy it he can bequeath it as a gift abandon it After abandonment he can re-homestead it if he likes, if nobody has done so in the meantime. The moment the property has been abandoned it ceases being property, and becomes unowned again.
But abandoning it and leaving it unused aren't the same thing.
I believe if you said that by leaving it unused you would be giving up ownership would be the mutualist position, but I could be mistaken.
Sure, but afterwards we sue them for everything they're worth getting all their cool UFOs!
A more serious answer though might be this:
It seems the same as if someone homesteaded an underground lair 300 feet under my house. If they decide to remove that lair and my house then collapses into the hole, is that not the same situation? Since this is a more normal question, maybe it has an answer already. Maybe we've already encountered this exact situation (e.g. subways, sewer systems, etc.).
It's weird because everyone seems to be talking about homesteading like "it's the rules; we just follow them." The question we should be asking is, "Why should property rights be respected?" The answer to that question would seem to provide a lot of guidance for answering the question, "Given what we identified to be the point of property rights, how might we want to think about original appropriation and the persistence of property claims over time?" But the first question is foundational, and without it, no answer to the second will be possible.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
You own that which you directly grasp physically, form, or marking. When you can do that, you can own the star.
Why would that be true? That is, what is the basis of the right to property (why ought people to respect property claims?), and why would the capacity to physically alter something be a necessary condition for ownership?
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