Political Theory

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

cab21 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:39:26 GMT

so does a person need to labor with every square inch?

so no matter what some asshole logging company can just cut down anything and say it was unreasonable to know it belonged to someone?

what about people that had a field and planted a forest, surely they labored to create that forest?

laboring with nonowned would be different than aiming at owned i would think

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Vanitas Nomen — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:02:55 GMT

No.
If you stand just beyond the perimeter of said land and aim a hose at it, watering the land, you would not thus own the land.
Same goes for aiming a hose at your neighbor's lemon tree.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

ToxicAssets — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:33:06 GMT

Eugene:

Not the first time discussed here, but still.

1.

If I digged pathways in a natural reserve, hanged signs and posts for the benefit of the hikers, cleared a place for camping, and in general tidied the place, do I get property rights for the entire reserve? I think not. I think I'll have property rights only for those structures, but the hills, the river, the valley with the trees and the exotic flowers will remain unowned.

2.

Does a lumberjack company have the right to cut down the trees in the natural reserve after I spent so much effort to make it welcoming to travellers and hikers? I don't think so.

3.

So my conclusion is that no one should own the entire natural reserve. What do you think?

The word "should" indicates that you think rights are these universally objective things.

So the people that actually control the reserve have no objective right to do it due to their non fulfillment of the correct homesteading protocol of ownership that you believe to be universally right.

But here's the thing… there's no such protocol.

Any right, even a property right, is nothing but a generally respected claim and therefore exists insofar as the claimant is able to generally dissuade the intentions others would have to disregard whatever he's claiming to be his right.

And to be able to do it he has to be display some sort of persuasive disposition, otherwise he will be walked upon. He can do it by a raw exhibition of power or by his inclination to leverage a powerful social mechanism at his reach, it doesn't matter.

Enough persuasion can secure any right.

It's not a question of "should", but of "would".

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

cab21 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:25:28 GMT

the person is mixing labor with the land if the person waters the land.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 05:59:24 GMT

How is that related?

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

cab21 — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:08:38 GMT

can someone fly with a helocopter or plane and water the area, therefore using the area?

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:46:09 GMT

I quote from a parallel post in: http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/post1426.html#p1426

Here is a timeline:

2050: A beautiful valley with a forest and a river is visited by about 1000 hikers yearly

2051: A developer builds a parking lot with a restaurant, and to make the place more attractive, he hangs direction and information signs

2052: Families with small children start to visit the beautiful valley. To accommodate them and to further increase the flow of visitors, the restaurant owner with the parking lot owner construct easy access paths for some of the most beautiful locations.

2053: Some visitors become known for littering the valley. The parking lot owner with the restaurant owners and with the support of most of the visitors expel these people from the reserve. Then they decide to collectively fund a cleaning service.

So at what stage exactly does someone become the exclusive owner of the valley with the right to fence the area, and expel anyone new to the valley?

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:54:23 GMT

It seems like you are desperately trying to find a way in which a person can gain private ownership over a natural resource. Why is that? Why do we absolutely need private ownership in all cases? Yes we know that private ownership makes resource utilization more efficient, but is private ownership in this case moral and just? I think not. I think the idea that you can homestead mountains, rivers, or forests is quite absurd. These are natural phenomena which no one created with his own labor, and which everyone should be able to enjoy. I don't think it is just to give one person or several people exclusive ownership over these resources. Why should they be able to expel other people from enjoyment of those natural wonders? Many libertarians think that children should not be 100% owned and instead people should have custodian rights for them. Why not the same for natural preserves?

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Bill — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:16:41 GMT

not saying your wrong but can you evidence that there was an extensive system of nature reserves? i dont mean to imply that the worked together but that it was really common or atleast happened often. I can find a few examples but they are small or very very old.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Bogart — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:01:19 GMT

No I don't. I just pointed out that if someone a portion of the property prior to you then you would not be able to homestead that property unless that person abandoned it.

Homesteading like abandonment is determined by current social conventions based upon what the property is and how people use it. In the case of a nature preserve you could build a wall around it and maintain that wall actively. Assuming noone else has already homesteaded the property and not abandoned it, then there is no reason why a person could not homestead a nature preserve. In fact prior to the expansion of the US Federal Government into the park and nature preservation business, there were lots of estates that purchased land for nature preserves and left funding to maintain these preserves. In the same manner as purchasing, homesteading just establishes ownership of property. But still owners must upkeep their purchased or homesteaded property.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:46:13 GMT

Right. So you basically agree with me that you can't homestead a natural reserve

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Bogart — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:38:34 GMT

You don't. If you build the pathway through the forest then you have homesteaded only the pathway. If other individuals use their own paths thorugh the area then they have already homesteaded those paths and if used regularly then you would have to have some sort of agreement with them on building the path.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:39:12 GMT

By the way, here is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion of Walter Block regarding this: http://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/journl/SP12/REBE-SP12-A1.pdf

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Eugene — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:38:31 GMT

I don't think this is just. If you build pathways, you just own the pathways. I don't see why you would suddenly have the right to use force against individuals who travel in the forest in the vicinity of the pathways.

Re: Homesteading natural reserves

Bogart — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:35:35 GMT

1. You are assuming that if the property is unowned to begin with then you would be able to homestead the property. But you can not just improve it and leave it for hikers. You have to use the property and continue the improvements. You would have ownership rights on all property you homestead including but not limited to hills, rivers, water, etc. You did not homestead the ground below and the sky above however, so people may homestead that property by digging a mine or flying over the property.

2. Maybe. If you abandon all or part of the property then the lumberjack could homestead that part.

3. Not correct. If you are using the entire reserve that you homesteaded then you would own the entire reserve. But you have to actively own the whole thing. If you abandon portions then others can come in and use the property.