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?

Damn! I realy thought I was done commenting on this subject for the time being & then another lightbulb turned on in my head! Another scenario to help illustrate my point. I just can't resist this one! There exists a city(or a community, since there's no state). Let's call it An-capville. Within this city there are two somewhat wealthy investors. I already used Bob & Pete in another scenario, so this time we'll call them Ralph & Cecil. Both these investors are looking to make a profit. Ralph has this great new invention he's come up with. We'll call it a "widget". He feels it's a really great product that will be in high demand amongst consumers. Ralph invests his money into creating a widget factory. He hires some contractors and builds his factory. He then hires some employees to help run the factory and the factory begins to crank out widgets. Ralph does some math & it turns out the cost of producing a widget is $7, so he works out a deal to sell his widgets to some of the local retailers for $10 each. The public falls in love with the widget & sales go through the roof!! Ralph makes piles and piles of money! Hooray for Ralph! Hooray for the market! Hooray for capitalism! A win-win situation all the way around, no denying it! Ralph is wealthier. The consumers are wealthier(they valued the widget more than it's cost, or they wouldn't have purchased it). The contractors that built the factory are wealthier. The employees that worked in the factory are wealthier. The retailers that sold Ralph's widget for him are wealthier. A large net increase of wealth for the residents of An-capville all the way around! All of it going into the pockets of those whoe produced things and/or provided services. Prosperity, hooray!!! Now all the while this is going on, our other investor Cecil comes up with another plan. Cecil sees that An-capville is a growing expanding community(Thanks to guys like Ralph). Cecil decides to buy as much land as he can possibly afford just outside the city. What does he intend to do with it? He doesn't have to do anything with it. He just has to sit on it. He knows that as An-capville grows and expands, the demand for his land will increase & so will the price. 5 years pass and it appears Cecils instincts were right! the land is now worth triple what he paid for it! He sells his land and makes a huge profit! Hooray for Cecil! Now the question is: How did Cecil increase his wealth? Did he create wealth? Well no. He didn't produce anything. Did he provide a valuable service to the community? No, he actually did just the opposite. He held valuable resourses out of productive use actually preventing a possible increase of wealth in the community. Did Cecil create any jobs? No, he prevented any employment that might have been created had the land been put to productive use. Cecil did not create wealth, he simply re-distributed wealth from other segments of the community to himself. Every penny Cecil made was at the expense of someone else. A classic win-lose situation. Does anyone see something wrong with this way of aquiring wealth? Ralph became wealthy by creating wealth. Cecil became wealthy by prohibiting the creation of wealth. I think the whole problem comes from the idea of land as property. If we view property as the product of human action and land only as the opportunity create property, rather than property itself, then the idea that one has the right to buy and sell land gets fuzzy. If land is "property", then it can be exchanged, bought, or sold, just like any other form of property. If land is "opportunity", can land be bought and sold the same way property can? Another way of putting it, can one puchase the "right" to deny others oppourtunity? When Cecil purchased the land wasn't he just purchasing the so-called "right" to deny others the opportunity to use the land productively?

My final conclusion: Property rights are derived from self-ownership. therefore (unimproved) land and natural resources are not property. Rights are universal. Therefore the right to homestead is universal. If the actions of one person infringes on the rights of another, this is aggression. You can agree, or disagree. I don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been said. I base my conclusion on these basic principles: self-ownership, universality of rights, & non-aggression. No offense, but I'm tired of debating the subject for now & tired of repeating myself. I appreciate all the comments and I can't say this thread hasn't been educational. I'll check back from time to time & if anyone has any new questions, I'll give my two cents. For now, I have nothing else to say on this subject.

So, now we're debating the laws of physics(lol)?!By the way, I'd love to hear your song! I'm a musician myself. Can you provide a link?

Hopefull in a stateless society issues like this will be resolved peacefully. I'm all for that. I also know that while most people are reasonable & peaceful there will always be those who try and exploit others. Either by direct violence, or by fraud. It's easy for people to get swindled if they don't understand their rights. If people percieve the (statist)land-ownership system we have now to be legitimate, they're likely to be swindled. It's just something I would like people to think about. I'm not proposing any "one size, fits all" solution. Hopefully, in a free society people can figure it out for themselves.

It just seems to me that your are arguing that rights should NOT be universal. That may very well be your opinion, but it's not consistant with libertarian principles. Those principles being: *Self-ownership *Private property in the fruits of one's labor(derived from self-ownership) *Universal application, or equality of rights. *Non-aggression If you apply these principles consistantly, I don't see how you could not come to the following conclusions: a)Unimproved land(that which has not been in any way modified by man) is not property. It is only the opportunity to create property. b)A right to property doesn't make much sense if one has no right to create property. If we define homesteading as the act of creating property, then homesteading is a right. c)If homesteading is a right, it should be an equal universal right. d)If one's person's action is infringing upon another's right, this is an act of aggression. Now, if somehow the world becomes so overpopulated that there was literally not enough land and resources for all to sustain themselves, then first-come, first served is as good a principle as any for aquiring resources, I suppose. Better to have one person live, than both die. However in the real world where(at least for now) there are plenty of resources, if someone is being prohibited from from homesteading, it is not because nature, or bad luck is denying them the opportunity. It is obviously the action of others that is denying them that opportunity. This is an act of aggression. No different than me putting my hand over your mouth while you are trying to speak your mind. If a birth defect denied you a tounge, that's misfortunate. If my action infringes on your right to speak, that's aggression. Am I not making sense?

People are not equal because nature has given different people different physiology, skills, and talent. It is not the action of others that has made people unequal. Being born with only one arm is misfortunate. If I take a chainsaw & remove one of your arms, this is an act of aggression. Some ideas are more valuable than others, but the action of me having a big idea does not infringe upon your right to have a big idea. If I claim a disporportionate piece of land leaving you with little or none, my action has infringed on your equal right to claim the land. This would be an act of aggression, wheather intentional or not.

I know this isn't a real relevant issue, but I can't help but be curious. Do those of us that have similar philosophical views use one side of our brain more often than the other? I was surprised that I scored right brain dominate. I've always considered myself a very logical, rational type person, which I thought implied left-brain dominance. Just curious how my fellow anarchists score. here's one of many tests: http://en.sommer-sommer.com/braintest/

It's unlikely that the whole world would be claimed through human action, however how do you deal with the fact that some land is much more valuable than other land? Is it equality of rights when one claims land with valuable oil, or gold reserves, and another can only claim land in a desert, or arctic area? What about the buying & selling of land? Doesn't that have the potential to create concentrated land ownership by a minority, prohibiting others the opportunity to homestead? I don't know the most efficient way all the details might be sorted out any more than I can tell you "how the roads will be built". What's important is that people understand that homesteading is a universal right(most people don't understand this). How they work out the details on how to protect their rights is anyone's guess. A free market in possible solutions should eventually lead to the most efficient solution. When I refer to "rent" I mean rent in the economic sense. meaning the return to land and resouses of productive activity. Henry George goes to great length in defining terms such as "rent", "land", "capital", "wages", "interest", etc...in the book "Progress and Poverty". It's a good book to read, if you're in to economics. Payment for a service is not "rent" in the economic sense. Payment for a service would be defined as "wages", and would be the sole property of whoever provided the service. As would "interest" (the return to capital). A piece of gold in your pocket is worth more than a piece of gold 100 feet under the ground, right? Any value created by the miners investment of labor, or capital would belong to the miner. The question I'm asking is: What gives one person any more, or less a right to the untouched gold under the ground?

My bad: Homesteading is the "act" of creating property. the access to land/natural resourses is the "opportunity". If the opportunity to exercise a right(homestaeding) is being denied by the action of others, is this not an act of aggression? Shouldn't the opportunity for one to exercise a right be universal?

Homesteading is the opportunity. Homesteading is the opportunity to create property. If homesteading is a right, it should be universal.