Jon Irenicus: 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.
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.
The debate is kind of moot as there are no new lands to homestead. Maybe this can be used for the oceans and antarctica, or maybe the moon.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Governments hold massive swathes of unowned land that can be homesteaded.
To darkness I condemn you...
Okay, you're probably right. I was concerned with the possibility of monopoly conditions, but apart from that I agree, freedom of movement can't be a positive right.
Jon Irenicus: 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.
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.
Could you expand on that? How would others know the path to your property, and how is that easement agreed upon? If there already are properties on that path, then I must have acquired easement before beginning my journey. But otherwise?
No, if there already are properties that one must traverse there's no prospect of an easement without purchasing it. I'm not sure what courts would demand as proof of an easement, but all that means is that in the case of appropriation in a libertarian society individuals homesteading new land will have to make sure they show the path they treaded to get there, however that is to be demonstrated. I don't think that's a problematic requirement.
Easements aren't agreed upon, anymore than other property rights are; they're simply recognized by the courts, or not. In the case of purchasing property, here you'll have to make sure easements are included in the contract at the time of purchase. Courts already recognize easements FWIW, it's an element of common law. I'm not sure how they work precisely in the present, and it's likely they've already dealt with these issues in some way or other, so that's worth looking into.
Jon Irenicus: Governments hold massive swathes of unowned land that can be homesteaded.
It can't be homesteaded if the governments are holding it, and they're not going to stop holding it.
True enough, but I assumed we were speaking of a stateless society.
Jon Irenicus: True enough, but I assumed we were speaking of a stateless society.
In a mixed-state and stateless society, the case of free states being surrounded by unfree territories is common, and generally doesn't cause too many problems. I can only assume it would be moot in a stateless society as well.
But it'd imply the availability of large areas of land that were not homesteaded, that are now open for this purpose. Like I said though, I really don't find access to land to be an issue, as it's easily resolved via easements.
I agree. The big issue is the current situation, lots of large areas with access restricted, like US, Canada, Australia, Schengen area.
Jon Irenicus:But it'd imply the availability of large areas of land that were not homesteaded, that are now open for this purpose.
No it wouldn't.
Yes... it would. Just take that as my response every time you say "no".
Jon Irenicus: Yes... it would. Just take that as my response every time you say "no".
I take it then that you expressed a belief based on no evidence or supporting facts.
I take it as an appropriate response to an assertion. All states are to some degree or other absentee land-"owners". Upon their dissolution, that area may be homesteaded.
Jon Irenicus: I take it as an appropriate response to an assertion. All states are to some degree or other absentee land-"owners". Upon their dissolution, that area may be homesteaded.
There's no reason to believe that states will be dissolved before they sell off all the territories of value they control to keep themselves alive.
Who's to say they will even manage to do so in time?
Block would suggest that although the original appropriator has homesteaded the surface land, he has not homesteaded the underground nor the airspace above the land. Assuming that a company or coalition of landowners built a bridge or a tunnel in these unappropriated areas, there would be no problem. Block also talks about planning roads and using options to get around the problem of holdouts.
Stanley Pinchak: Block would suggest that although the original appropriator has homesteaded the surface land, he has not homesteaded the underground nor the airspace above the land. Assuming that a company or coalition of landowners built a bridge or a tunnel in these unappropriated areas, there would be no problem.
Block would suggest that although the original appropriator has homesteaded the surface land, he has not homesteaded the underground nor the airspace above the land. Assuming that a company or coalition of landowners built a bridge or a tunnel in these unappropriated areas, there would be no problem.
Yep. Of course then there might be objections that the bridge is blocking the sun, or the noise from the tunnel is a nuisance. The finer points of easements would be worked out by the courts and arbitors, but I think it's safe to say that if somebody went over or under a narrow piece of obstructive homesteaded land, most objections would be ignored by adjudicators.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
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?
Assuming you got to your homestead by using a road, the late comer can not homestead the road you already own. So he can't surround you.
Though questions like this don't really have much do with libertarianism. They are already dealt with in common law!
JonBostwick: 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? Assuming you got to your homestead by using a road, the late comer can not homestead the road you already own. So he can't surround you. Though questions like this don't really have much do with libertarianism. They are already dealt with in common law!
Assuming you go anywhere by using a road implies that road already has an owner, otherwise how did that road get there?
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