BorisM

I think the question is whether the claim is legitimate. Can someone claim more land than he is able to use? How does he justify that claim? Seems like we're really just talking in circles at this point. I don't mean to be rude, but unless you have a completely new angle that we haven't discussed at length, maybe it's time we just agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Thanx for contributing to the conversation.

If no consenting sexual partners exist, tough luck. If there's no land in existance that would be tough luck, as well. Land does exist. It is the the action of someone else that is preventing access. If consentual sexual partners exist & someone else is using force to prevent you from hooking up, that's violating your right.

I agree, but what if there are no "different spots" left? I realize there is plenty of unused land in the world today, however there is very little(if any) un-owned land today, at least in the legal sense. This is obviously a "statist" problem. Suppose, however in a state-less society A small percentage of the population bought up all, or a great majority of the land, so that there were no un-owned spots for newcomers. Would those newcomers not have less rights that their ancestors had when there was plenty of free land left to homestead?

"Right to be the first to create"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought we were discussing access to land & natural resources. You can't be first to create someting with a resource that someone else has already used. You can't be the first to "create" a log cabin from a grove of trees that someone else has already cut down and built a cabin with before you were born.

Reasonable is what the market determines it's worth. Collect the rental value of the land, or the highest bid for other un-owned resources & divide it up amongst society. This is just one idea, of course. there may be better ones. No descrimination? What about those not yet born? How does someone born later in time have less rights than his anscestors?

Exactly. Who is being excluded? The previous owner, or everyone that might want to use a given resource. If "everyone" is being excluded, shouldn't "everyone" be compensated? It sounds as if you believe "first come, first-served" trumps "equality of rights" as a moral principle. You're entitled to that opinion, but if you think that philosiphy will result in a society "without rulers", I think your greatly mistaken.

How much is the exclusion worth? It's worth whatever the excluder is willing to pay. In a free society the market would determine the price of "exclusion", just as it does for anything else of value. Consider broadcast spectrum. If several companies, or individuals are interested in broadcasting on the same frequency, how would you suggest they sort it out? Would the one with the most powerful transmitter be entitled to drown the others out? If one of the competitors later came up with an even more powerful transmitter, would he then be entitled to drown out the first guy, with competitors continually trying to overpower each other? Seems to me that the one who valued the frequency most compensating the others for the right to exclude them, is a more efficient & peaceful solution. Why would a person not want to be "included" in the use of something of value? If no one wanted to use a given resource there would be no value to it, thus the compensation for exclusion would be zero.

You had me up until this point(lol)!, however it may be just a misuse of the word "collective". I think "collective" ownership of resources is quite different than a "common" right to the use of something. http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html I would agree that broadcast spectrum is a natural resource that should be treated just as land, or any other natural resource. It requires exclusive use to use it efficiently, however those being "excluded" should be compensated. I think "self-ownership" is the principle. If you own yourself, you own your actions. If your actions produce something, you own what those actions produce.

I think property based on self-ownership is justifiable. I think it's rational to believe that if you create something with your labor, you have a right to it. I'll agree with your previous post that historically land and resouces were mainly aquired through conquest, and are not "owned" rightfully. How we deal with the injustices of the past will certainly be a complicated issue, should the state be abolished. How disputes regarding access to un-owned resources are handled in a free society, is really anyones guess. I just believe that all have a universal/equal right to access these resources. So long as the solution's voluntary and non-agressive, I don't have a problem with it.

True, everything comes from nature, if you trace it back far enough. When something becomes transformed into something new by human action, is when I believe it can be claimed it as property, if property is based on self-ownership. Prior to that action, anyone has as much right to it as anyone else.

Actually, human beings being a product of nature can NOT be owned, is more consistent with what I'm saying. Which begs several other moral questions, regarding what "is" or "isn't" property. If one could build a robot capable of the same level of conscience thought as a human, would that robot be property, or would it be a self-owner? If humans are created by "god", does "god" own us? Can we rightfully own animals, or are animals self-owners? What about animals bred, or genetically modified by humans? Way off topic, I know. Mabye time for another thread.

Interesting commentary regarding homesteading in a stateless society: http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/08/12/use-it-or-lose-it/

A canvas is a man-made product, isn't it? I mean they don't naturally just grow on trees. Some one had to make the canvass. It is the product of someone's labor, that's why it's property.I think if we are going to define something as "property" there has to be some basic moral principle that justifies it's ownership.I can justify ownership of man-made property(Houses, Cars, food, canvasses,etc...) based on the principle of self ownership. If I own myself, I own the consequences of my actions. These items would not have existed had someone not created them.Now if things not created by human action are property, what is the principle that justifies ownership? Obviously, two, or more people can't use the same land at the same time, so who has more of a right to use a given piece of land? The guy that plants crops first, the new guy that wants to plant his own crops there, or the guy that wants to build a house? What gives the first guy any more right to use the land than the others? I'm not saying anyone should destroy the first guy's crops, but would he not owe them some kind of compensation if his use is denying them the right to homestead the land as he's done? Why does he get to take as much as he wants, if that action infringes on the equal rights of the other two guys?

The video makes a good point, but keep in mind the video is referring to food speculation. Food is a product of someone's labor(for example: crops are planted, nurtured, harvested, etc...) which make it a legitimate form of property, based on self-ownership. Land is not the same. When one speculates in "land", he is really just purchasing the priviledge of denying others the right to homestead that land. I don't think one can own something that's not property. If property is derived from self-ownership then "land" is not property. Now, I do understand that exclusive use of land is necessary for property to be created, but exclusive use is not necessarily the same as ownership.When someone "purchases" land, he is paying the previous holder of that land for giving up his right to use that piece of land. The "seller" has every right to agree to relinquish use of the land for compensation. The problem is the "purchaser" is not compensating others who might wish to use that land. If the "purchaser" paid rent(the price to be determined by the market) on the land & that rent was divided up amongst all the members of the community, he would indeed be compensating everyone who might want to use that land, rather than just one person. In this way he could exclusively use the land, as is necessary to create property, while at the same time, justly compensating everyone else for infringing on their equal right to use the land.

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the slaves in the first place. the people that sold cecil the slaves must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his slaves could have allowed them to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the slaves gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the slaves that he owned to help the slaves value not depreciate the way it would if they were not maintained. the service he provided influenced slave prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the slaves. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment and have to sell at a lower price than the slaves were bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the slaves to cecil could have decided to make other use of the slaves by selling to someone else, or keeping them for other usages. someone had to capture and own any slaves bought. these slaves outside of captivity would not just be free people noone ever usedDoes purchasing something with legitimately aquired money justify an act that is otherwise unjust?