This is the only question I can't answer with my knowledge of Austrian thought.
Say I homestead an acre of land. Another person then homesteads the land immediately surrounding my own, creating a literal border around my property. What happens?
As an aside, I'd like to express my personal opinion about the Austrian theory in general... it's beautiful. It's beautiful for the same reasons math is beautiful. If there's ever something you don't understand, you need only recall the basics, and you'll realize that this seemingly new thing is nothing more than a different combination of the old.
Daniel Waite:Say I homestead an acre of land. Another person then homesteads the land immediately surrounding my own, creating a literal border around my property. What happens?
Nothing happens, whoever homesteaded the property completly surrounded by someone else's made a terrible decision to homestead a piece of land that could easilly be surrounded.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
laminustacitus: Daniel Waite:Say I homestead an acre of land. Another person then homesteads the land immediately surrounding my own, creating a literal border around my property. What happens? Nothing happens, whoever homesteaded the property completly surrounded by someone else's made a terrible decision to homestead a piece of land that could easilly be surrounded.
And so they'll be trapped on their land for all eternity?
nibbler491: And so they'll be trapped on their land for all eternity?
They're the ones who wanted to live there. If they want to trade with the rest of the world, they have to pay the cost of passing through someone else's land.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Actually at least some Austrians, Walter Block I believe (but I'm not sure), would argue that you've also homesteaded the easement to that property. Otherwise there would be little or no market for land that can be surrounded at will.
I haven't read Block's argument but I agree that you've homesteaded an easement in your scenario. You had to physically travel to your property somehow, and since the land wasn't owned you've claimed right to passage on it.
In more practical terms, homesteading that much land around you woudn't happen immediately. You should have plenty of time to see it coming and carve out your own path. But assume a worst case scenario, say that you somehow didn't notice this happening or were gone on vacation, and the surrounding owner is now denying you passage (locked in or locked out). How would you feel about that? What would you want to do? I think most people would be extremely angry and might get violent. It would seem to me that private protection agencies and insurance companies would want to wave coverage for land owners who did such a thing. The potential for violence would be too great, so good luck to the surrounding land owner in protecting himself.
I agree with Dr. Block on the homesteading of easements. One comes into original possession of property by making use of previously unused resources. When one travels to the land he homesteads, he makes use of the land surrounding it such that he has created a property in its use for passage. He has not, however, transformed the land, and so has not created a physical property in it. He therefore does not have the right to exclude others from using the land upon which his easement lies, so long as his right-of-way is maintained in that use.
This leaves the question of how far his right to access the surrounding property extends. My own opinion is that if the homesteader has followed a certain route in the past, his right-of-way lies along that path. If not, then the appropriator of the surrounding property is obligated only to provide an unbroken right-of-way through his property, not necessarily in any specific physical location. Most likely he will want to provide a short and direct route so that he does not have to break the contiguity of his exclusive property any more than neccessary.
Of course this scenario could have been avoided altogether if the homesteader had cleared and marked a road or path, which would transform the land into a physical property, leaving no question as to the existence of right-of-way.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: Of course this scenario could have been avoided altogether if the homesteader had cleared and marked a road or path, which would transform the land into a physical property, leaving no question as to the existence of right-of-way.
Consider what happens if someone buys / homesteads a 200km x 1/4m piece of land somewhere in the middle of nowhere. And suppose more colonists arrive later. If the owner of that long thin piece of land doesn't allow anybody to cross it, or he charges very high fees for passage, are those people supposed to go 'round that thing?
Well, this is inconsistent, as does that example with the surrounding homestead. Essentially, the inner owner is a prisoner. He could pay (let's say this happens in a modern world) a PDA to get him out of there. Laws or customs regarding passage in such situations would emerge from human action and market mechanisms.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Consider what happens if someone buys / homesteads a 200km x 1/4m piece of land somewhere in the middle of nowhere. And suppose more colonists arrive later. If the owner of that long thin piece of land doesn't allow anybody to cross it, or he charges very high fees for passage, are those people supposed to go 'round that thing? Well, this is inconsistent, as does that example with the surrounding homestead. Essentially, the inner owner is a prisoner. He could pay (let's say this happens in a modern world) a PDA to get him out of there. Laws or customs regarding passage in such situations would emerge from human action and market mechanisms.
Why doesn't he build an airport?
Stranger: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Well, this is inconsistent, as does that example with the surrounding homestead. Essentially, the inner owner is a prisoner. He could pay (let's say this happens in a modern world) a PDA to get him out of there. Laws or customs regarding passage in such situations would emerge from human action and market mechanisms. Why doesn't he build an airport?
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Well, this is inconsistent, as does that example with the surrounding homestead. Essentially, the inner owner is a prisoner. He could pay (let's say this happens in a modern world) a PDA to get him out of there. Laws or customs regarding passage in such situations would emerge from human action and market mechanisms.
Why should he? Maybe he doesn't want to. He's looking for the cheapest way to free himself.
In any case, it's nonsense to ask people to homestead the access path as well. It doesn't even work when homesteading new land, there will always be another access path to another teritorry you haven't thought about. Will you build all possible roads to be sure you can reach every point?
Has the person homesteaded (via frequent use) or otherwise acquired easement rights? If not, then he should have and it's his own fault that he does not own any. If he did, he is free to come and go off his property, through the homesteaded/purchased path. If someone buys property, it's up to them to make sure it comes with easements...
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: If someone buys property, it's up to them to make sure it comes with easements...
If someone buys property, it's up to them to make sure it comes with easements...
Are you saying the surrounded owner should have made sure the previously un-owned land around him should have come with easements before the other's moved in? If that is the case then I would ask, easement to where - a toll road, or just wherever the person needs to go? Not that I dont disagree fundamentally, but in this case it seems almost unreasonable to know at that point.
Are easements negative rights? I would say not
This does bring up the sticky question of freedom of movement - does passing through someone's unused private property constitute coercion in all cases? I would say as a maxim, yes as who is to say your residence wouldnt be fair game; however in the abstract I dont think most people would object to someone walking across their open field.
In a free society, understanding your neighbors needs for a travel corridor through your property would likely be what produces the private voluntary roads that we often talk about - this way we can graduate from the toll road abstract theory, to developing a more tangiable need to implementation theory.
Presumably to whichever road the easement is connected, I'd think. They're negative rights BTW. Just a reduced form of a property right.
AndrewKemendo: In a free society, understanding your neighbors needs for a travel corridor through your property would likely be what produces the private voluntary roads that we often talk about - this way we can graduate from the toll road abstract theory, to developing a more tangiable need to implementation theory.
Hmm, this is a very good point about private roads.
Although if we require easements, they would likely be unimproved land.
AndrewKemendo: Are you saying the surrounded owner should have made sure the previously un-owned land around him should have come with easements before the other's moved in? If that is the case then I would ask, easement to where - a toll road, or just wherever the person needs to go? Not that I dont disagree fundamentally, but in this case it seems almost unreasonable to know at that point. Are easements negative rights? I would say not This does bring up the sticky question of freedom of movement - does passing through someone's unused private property constitute coercion in all cases? I would say as a maxim, yes as who is to say your residence wouldnt be fair game; however in the abstract I dont think most people would object to someone walking across their open field.
Yes, it would've been great if this had a simple, clear-cut answer, without any kind of subjective judgement involved. How wide should it be? Should this be done on every property?
However, lack of easements could easily create monopoly conditions, at least in theory. I only need to buy/homestead a very small portion of land that encircles my neighbor, and then I can tax him higher than otherwise possible.
I'm yet to know a satisfactory answer to this question. I don't have one either. I can only guess that PDA-to-PDA interaction could solve this upon repeated conflicts.
Jon Irenicus: Presumably to whichever road the easement is connected, I'd think. They're negative rights BTW. Just a reduced form of a property right.
How do you figure? Wouldnt they then be incumbent on a property owner which is not you being somehow restrained with their use of portions of their property?
No? They're reduced forms of property rights that arise through travelling through an area a number of times. They're not something someone has a right for someone else to provide them with, if that is what you mean. What is going on is the abatement of the infringement of a (reduced) property right.
How on earth would one do this without blocking the path to the land that was homesteaded and paths from which the homesteading party travelled to the rest of civilization? The only way one can do so is if the land was purchased absent any easements (or roads, more forcefully.) I'm not sure why you're worried about a lack of easements. They can only arise out of pure carelessness, in which case the "tax" is payment for the price of stupidity.
Jon Irenicus: However, lack of easements could easily create monopoly conditions, at least in theory. I only need to buy/homestead a very small portion of land that encircles my neighbor, and then I can tax him higher than otherwise possible. How on earth would one do this without blocking the path to the land that was homesteaded and paths from which the homesteading party travelled to the rest of civilization? The only way one can do so is if the land was purchased absent any easements (or roads, more forcefully.) I'm not sure why you're worried about a lack of easements. They can only arise out of pure carelessness, in which case the "tax" is payment for the price of stupidity.
Marking the path to the homesteaded land is not at all a common practice. In case this doesn't happen, it's quite easy to do what I said, as there's no claimed path to block, so no property gets trespassed. Secondly, buying the road (or all possible roads) along with the property is very costly.
So what? It'd have to become a common practice, fast. Easements obtain regardless of marking anyway; they're just reduced property rights to access a given plot, that come about by travelling a hitherto unowned path. And why would you have to buy all possible roads? You'd just need a road connecting you to civilization (assuming you're not buying a piece of land already connected to a road, with rights of access attaching to it.) I think this is much ado about nothing.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Why should he? Maybe he doesn't want to. He's looking for the cheapest way to free himself. In any case, it's nonsense to ask people to homestead the access path as well. It doesn't even work when homesteading new land, there will always be another access path to another teritorry you haven't thought about. Will you build all possible roads to be sure you can reach every point?
He is free, on his own land. If he wants to establish trade links with other lands, he has to pay the price for that. If the links are mutually beneficial, then the other lands will pay their part for the road.
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