NathanCJohnson

Robin, the idea of perpetual property in land deriving from an arbitrary amount of homesteading for an arbitrary period of time is a position held by most anarcho-capitalists. Most other anarchists who accept homesteading, say that just as tenure in land begins when homesteading begins, so does it end when homesteading ends. Perhaps you might flesh out your understanding a bit more. Do you think unimproved land can be sold or rented?

As to making a distinction between land and capital for ownership, I am making a distinct that classic liberals such as Locke, Adam Smith, Paine, Jefferson made. See quotes. http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

Andrew, Here is a methodoly assessors use for calculating ground/land rent. http://www.henrygeorge.org/ted.htm

Rothbard loved to use the Robinson Crusoe example so here is one. Friday and Crusoe shipwreck. Friday land first and homestead the island (by whatever means that means to you) Then Crusoe lands. If Crusoe respects Fridays homesteading claim but cannot leave, he is effectively a slave to Friday. Friday can demand whatever rent he wants for renting Crusoe a space on the island.

Robin, I see how I've caused some confusion. The common use of rent is different for the economic concept of rent. he three factors that contribute to production — land, labor and capital — each receive a return. Land earns rent, labor earns wages, capital earns interest. Land is, by its nature, fixed in supply: when demand for land rises, no more land can be created, so land price rises. When land gets a higher return, labor and capital by definition get a lower return. Labor is supplied by human beings, day by day. Capital is supplied by human beings, from their savings. Why should the owners of land — who didn't produce even a square foot of it — collect more rent simply because land is fixed in supply, depriving labor and capital of their just return? By these definitions, rent is derived from priveldge. Interest and wages are derived from production. See the illustrative Law of Rent: http://www.henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm

I agree it's in the interest of the nonpsychopath among us to come up with a peaceful solution. I believe Henry George has come up with that solutions. I don't think I can convince you here, but I hope I've piqued your interests enough to read more. Albert Einstein: "Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness Leo Tolstoy “People do not argue with the teachings of George, they simply do not know it. And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.”

.:1:1:1:comment490653400997270_490989314297012.:0.:1.:0.:1.:0.:0.:0:2.:0.:0]Pre-state societies (American Indians, ancient Saxons, pre-colonized Africans, etc.) had tribal dominion over land, and individual property in improvements. You could not walk into someone's teepee because the teepee itself was property, not the land under the teepee. Nor could you trample through someone's crops because the crops were property, etc. A few quotes that challenge ownership of land as UPB..:1:1:1:comment490653400997270_490989314297012.:0.:1.:0.:1.:0.:0.:0:2.:0.:3]"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.".:1:1:1:comment490653400997270_490989314297012.:0.:1.:0.:1.:0.:0.:0:2.:0.:6]- Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45 "Men did not make the earth... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine

Assuming we come up with some universally preferable homesteading principle, how do we peacefully rectify all the misallocated property by the mechanism of the state. It's hard to imagine any land redistribution scenerio that can be resolved peacefully and justly. Becase land redistribution as opposed to George's solution creates win lose scenerios, it seems it will inevitably be determined by force of might.

xelent. I understand agents of the state use lie and propaganda, but you don't believe there should be any inalienable rights? Do you believe in UPB and that following UPB implies rights?

Robin, I don't mean to take things out of context, so let me quote you more extensively. "Usually when one makes use of a part of the environment, one either places stuff there that wasn't there before (like planting plants that grow things) and/or one modifies some aspect of the environment to make use of the modified version (like plowing a field, making a mining shaft). In both instances one has effectively creates something that wasn't there before and can claim ownership of the creation. " I agree that you created/grew and own the plants and have a right to harvest the plants. But you didn't create the land. How do you derive ownership of the land? What if someone returns yearly to hunt on a land, do they own it? What do they own? Where they walked? Where the deer fell down? This seems arbitrary.

If you go to an asteroid you are free to use it without compensation. It is only when someone else comes to the asteroid, and you claim the right to exclude them, that you should negotiate some mutually beneficial compromise rather then asserting your right to the entire asteroid you did not create.If not then we should give all the Americas back to the native Americans.

Robin " [/font]I gave a clear principle and I still fail to see what the supposed issue is. If someone creates and maintains a plowed field, he owns it" [/font]So is all unplowed land unowned or is there another underlying principle?

Thornyd"You are certainly right about your speech being subject to the property owner's approval. [/font]But why would someone who doesn't own land have NO inalienable rights?" If my right to free speech is dependent on the approval of whoever property I am on and do to extension of property right, I am always on someone else's property, then the right is not inalienable.[/font]

Andrew, Some good questions. I don't know all the ways in which a free society would answer these questions, but I will give you my ideas. We should of course start with 1st principles and UPB. My take on a UPB principle of land/uncreated resource is that you don't get to exclude someone from our common heritage of the land without negotiating some compensation. Property apprasier have mathematical methodoly for calculating land value. I can get you a link if you are interested. It is calculated by formula but determined by the market. There all different schools of though in Georgism, and some direct the revenue to the state, but most geolibertarians believe that the rent should be collected locally and distributed to those excluded as a citizens dividend. The principle is not applied to computers, because someone else can make their own. Now if you monopolized the land that contained all the world's silicon, that land would be very valuable. Because many people would want access to this land to harvest the silicon, the compensation to exclude others from this computer building resource should/would be high. In a world based on anacap philosophy it would be possible for small groups to monopolize these resources and drive up prices/rent seek. With a UPB based on compensation of others for exclusion it would not. Land value would never be negative, because if no one has value from keeping it privatized, then it is open to all. If someone doesn't compensate others for exclusion, then others should not feel bound to honor their claims of exclusive use. For some uses, it's possible/practical to operate on land without exclusivity. For others it is not.

Perhaps it might help if some people would offer some principles for rightful coming to own uncreated land. I get it means some mixing of labor to transform the land, but what does that mean? Can I transform it with an explosive? If I make a fence do I own the land under the fence, or all it encloses? Do I and my descendents own it forever? If not what is the criteria for abandonment. This all seems pretty arbitrary and not UPB.

I can't fully do Henry George justice in a brief blurb, but his concept is that we all fully own anything we produce, but we all have common rights to the land that no one produced. If not with all land claimed, those without lands access do not have rights, accept according to the whims of the landowners. George is not a communist. He believed all production should go to the producer without any confiscation of income or sales tax. Also since most people want/need private lands they can, but they then owe those who they are excluding the ground rent (ie the rent of the unimproved land). Any capital on the land, ie house, factory, is a creation and there should be no rent on this. These seems to fit well with UPB.Land is most valuable in the city. It is the community that surrounds the city land that gives the land value. A small vacant and bare lot in Manhattan is worth millions. The landlord has done nothing to improve this lot, but for anyone to use the land they must pay him a fee for which he produced nothing. This encourages land speculation and keeping land out of use. In the last few decades the rent from land has consumed all the increases wealth, increase productivity should have brought the populace. Many of us think we are homeowners, but the bankers have manipulated the system so we all owe them rent (mortgage) for what they did not produce.I'd encourage you to explore more of George. It's really fascinating stuff.

My example was not meant to say the second person was producing 10x as much, but that he was working whatever arbitrary homesteading required to work different lands each year, but hold land he worked on previously in perpetuity. He doesn't need to be the most effecient if he is the landLORD. He can have the most efficient work for him. But most land claims are even more historically arbitrary then this.Rothbard in writing on homesteading says it was actually the slaves that homesteaded the land and not the plantation owner. But I'm unclear by what mechanism the majority race will (in this example southern whites) will unseat the current white owners and give it to the heirs of the slaves.

http://speaklibertynow.com/2012/08/06/common-rights-vs-collective-rights-2/

TheRobin, "So if I plow a field, I own the plowed field." What if you plow the same field every year, but someone else plows 10 different fields in 10 different year, by this strategy the other person owns 10x the land you do, and can now charge rent on the 90% of the land he doesn't use. This is the problem with owning land in perpetuity.

Thornyd,"dispel the notion that we all have a right to land"But if in an Anacap society all land is privatized, then anyone who does not own land has NO inalienable rights. If I am on someone else's property, my speech is not free but subject to the owner's approval.

So your a Georgist/geolibertarian RestoringGuy?

Using UPB it makes sense we own that which we produce, but none of us produced land. It is our common heritage. So how then can we exclude others from land (by initiation of force if necessary) without compensation, just because we gave money to someone whose grandfather kicked off the natives and performed some state sanctioned homesteading principle. Can homesteading be UPB and in what form? [/font] A few months ago I came across the 19th century writing of Henry George, Progress and Poverty, and it's also quite remarkable. [/font] I've had really good discussion with Dan Sullivan the [/font]founder, of geolibertarian society about this. I've attached his article for a quick read, but I'd really recommend George's classic book (link to free text audio). If we abolish the state but keep all the real ("royal") estates, we'll have state privledge still maintained in an Anacap society. http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://hgchicago.org/links/henry-georges-major-books/progress-poverty-audiobook http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm