BorisM

Not that it's relevant to the subject at hand, but I would say land has been modified. Molton lava beneath the earth's crust has been modified by energy. It has ben re-located form beneath the ground to outside the volcano. It has been transformed from lava to solid rock via the cooling process. No land has magically appeared out of nowhere. What does a volcano erupting have to do with property rights? Property rights derive from HUMAN action, not volcanic eruptions(lol)!There are ways of insuring that everyone's right to access land is upheld. You don't have have to divide it up every time a new person is born. That would obviously be impractical. I like the idea of collecting the rental value of land(as determined by the market) & dividing it amongst the individuals in a given region. That way anyone using a lessor or equal per-capita share would have his rent offset by his dividend. Those using more than a per-capita share would be justly compensating those whom they've displaced from the land. This remedies alot of other property related problems as well, which I will try and discuss at a later time. There may be better ideas. In a free society, I believe the market would eventually insure that the best ideas win in the long run. There may not be a "perfect" solution, but we can do much better than we have historicaly.Do we need a "government" to enforce this?...No, I think if/when the people understand that they do indeed have the (universal)right to homestead(create property), each as much as the next one. Then they have every right to voluntarily organize and co-operate to protect that right. No need for coersion.I have a few more rebuttals that I'd like to make, but it's late & I'm getting tired. I'll re-visit the subject in the near future. Best wishes.

I would have to disagree. Modifying land creates property. It doesn't create land it only changes it's form. Can something be a "right", if one is rightfully prohibited by others from exercising that right? Do you see the contradiction there? It has nothing to do with "ability". It has everything to do with oppourtunity. Basic libertarian philosiphy says that any person should have the right to do as he pleases, so long as that right does not interfere with the equal right of others. In other words, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins, otherwise you are violating my right to my own face. Rights are not unlimited, they are limited by the "equal rights of others". If one homesteads so much land that it deprives others the right to do the same, he is violating another's right. In principle, same thing as swinging your fist into my face.

??? The conditions have been changed by "people". If other "people" hadn't already homesteaded all the land, there would still be some available for homesteading. In what other way have conditions been changed, other than by the actions of people? Natural resources(such as land) can't be created. Land can be moved around, it can be modified, improved upon. I don't see how land(in it's natural state) can be created. Assuming you can create more land, where you gonna put it? You need some place to put it don't you? The ocean maybe? The ocean is a natural resources as well, so you would need access to the ocean. Where did the biowaste come from? It had to come from some resource, didn't it? For the sake of this discussion, when I refer to "land" I mean un-improved land & un-improved natural resources. You can improve/modify/re-locate land, but I don't see how you can create it. You can't create something from nothing. You are absolutely correct. Homesteading is not "something for nothing". Homesteading requires labor, which creates property based on self-ownership(You own yourself, you own your labor, you own that which your labor creates). The "un-improved" land, i.e. the land before it was homesteaded, didn't cost humanity a thing. It was just "there". I'm certainly not trying to argue against property rights. What I'm saying is that property rights are derived from self-ownership. I'm saying that all possess an equal right to create property, which is what homesteading is. Once someone has mixed his labor with land, that is rightfully his exclusive property. I'm not suggesting we should take property & divide it up amongst anyone who wants it. I'm suggesting that the oppourtunity to create property should be universal.I think the problem is in defining "land" as property in the first place. If property is derived from self-ownership, then "land"(in it's un-improved natural state) shouldn't be considered property at all. "Land" is not property, it is only the oppourtunity to create property. This "oppourtunity" is what should be universal. It is not a positive right. I'm not suggesting re-distributing anything that any person applied their labor to. So you would be O.K. with the first person that got to it scarfing the whole pizza down & letting his co-workers go hungry? He had that right 'cause he got to it first? I find that hard to believe. I'm certain 99% or more of the population would consider him an A**hole. It's certainly not universally preferred behavior. The pizza may not be the "only source of food around", but the earth is the only source of sustainance for the human race. Which makes it even more important that everyone has access to it.

If all the land is previously owned/occupied, doesn't that prevent the pursuit of homesteading? Who's asking anyone to provide something to someone else? No one provided the land. It was there long before the human race ever existed. I think many are just so opposed to the idea of somebody getting something for nothing, that it clouds their judgement regarding land. The fact is land and natural resources ARE something for nothing. Somebody somewhere, at some time is gonna get something for nothing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The earth is a free gift from nature. The only question, that I see is weather we all have an equal, universal right to this "free" gift, or do some have the right(loosely based on first come first served), and others not. Imagine a similar small-scale scenario that illistrates the same principle: An employer asks 4 employees to work late one evening. They agree to work late. The boss is a pretty good guy. He realizes they're probably hungry since they're working through dinner time so he "gives" them a free large pizza, sliced into 8 pieces. He does not specify any specific conditions as to who gets how much pizza. Now who gets the pizza? Does the first guy that opens the box get to take the whole thing?... 3/4 of it?... 1/2 of it?... however much he wants, leaving the rest to fight over the scraps? You'd probably think he was an A**hole, if he did, wouldn't you? Does it not seem reasonable that each employee should take 2 slices, so that everyone gets an equal share? Would this not be "universally preferrable behaviour"? Considering land is a gift(from nature), the pizza is a gift(from the boss), why should the principle be any different?

Stefan Molyneux does an excellent job of explaining property rights through homesteading in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMfTbSBLks4 Everything he says makes perfect sense. However, he fails to address how homesteading rights can be universal, once a fixed amount of land/natural resources has all been previously homesteaded. He also fails to address how long one may make a claim to a given resource that he is no longer using. Still, an excellent explaination of property rights based on self-ownership.

"However most peasants paid their rent with part of their crop and survived on the remaining potatoes. This meant they did not use money and therefore could not buy food or access credit." "If tenants are not paying the rent then they shouldn’t be allowed to keep the land." Certainly concentrated land ownership/monopolization(a state protected priviledge) was a contributing factor to the poverty of the peasants. See:http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37650-a-fatal-flaw-in-libertariananarcho-capitalist-thought/

By "resouces", I mean natural resources. More specifically non man-made resources. Naturally if someone has invested time & energy in creating something that did noy previously exist, then yes they would have property rights to that thing(or the right to monoplize it). That would be an extension of self-ownership. You own yourself, you own your labor, you own what your labor has poduced. What I'm discussing here is "natural" resources, "un-improved" land. Things that no-one has invested time & energy on. Do we all have an equal, universal right to these things? If not, then by what principle do some have the right and others not? What does the non-aggression principle mean, if we don't have rights? An aggressive act, is one that violates a right. If I slug you in the face, I'm aggressing against your right to self-ownership(you own your face). If I steal your stuff, I'm aggressing against your property rights. Isn't violating a right what constitutes aggression? I don't know that the term "aggression" even makes any sense without the concept of "rights"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between a right and a priviledge, is that a priviledge implies an obligation on someone else(i.e. "free" healthcare implies someone else is obligated to provide you with healthcare, therefore it's not a right). On the other hand a right imposes no burden on any other party(i.e. doesn't harm anyone else) Are we in agreement so far? Now the way I look at it, so long as my homesteading does not deny anyone else the equal right to do the same, I'm not imposing any obligation, or burden on any other party, right? However, where I think most of the confusion/disagreement comes from, is the fact that land/resources are limited in supply, whereas other rights(i.e. free speech, privacy, right to one's labor) are basically unlimited, or more properly put "limited only by the equal rights of others to do the same". Homesteading, I believe to be a right, so long as it does not infringe on "the equal rights of other to do the same". The problem arises when all the fixed resources have been previously monopolized P.S. Did not mean to offend by labeling you a "nihilist", but you must admit the concept of "no rights" sounds somewhat nihilistic. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Homesteading is perfectly moral, so long as all have an equal right to homestead. The problem is that land and natural resources are fixed in supply. When there is no longer enough quality land/resources left for everyone to homestead, those who got here first have rights that those that came later do not have. This, then violates the principle that all rights are universal.

"Capitalism" is probably one of the most mis-undestood words in the English language. many people equate "capitalism" with the U.S./western democratic economic system, which has very little in common with true capitalism. I like the term "free-market" much better. Perhaps "Free Market Voluntaryists" would be a more appealing label for our philosiphy.

Mike, have you really thought about what you are saying?! We don't have a right to life?!...So your saying that if I take your life(i.e. kill you), I haven't violated your rights? This has to be one of the most absurd comments that I've seen on here! The right to life is the same as the right to self-ownership(if you own yourself, you own your life!). That's not a libertarian principle?! It has nothing to do with the Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution guaranteed a "right to life", it is, however in the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like you are a nihilist, not a libertarian. You have a point, but the price of land in South America is really irrelevant, when we are discussing principle. Also land is not the only natural resource. This isn't just about farming, or having a place to build a home. What about oxygen, bandwidth, minerals, crude oil reserves? Does a minority of the population have the right to monopolize these resources, thus excluding all others from having access? Let me get this straight. No right to life, no right to homestead?...So, everyone that ever homesteaded a piece of land didn't have the right to do so? They did something immoral by homesteading, because they had no such right? Did you really stop to think about what you are saying?

A final perspective & challenge in the form of a series of questions: 　 Are all rights universal(applying equally to all people)? pick one: A) yes B) no 　 If "A" is true then C, or D must also be true, correct?: C) all people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth. D) no people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth. (Obviously, if some have the right and others don't then it is not a "universal" right, it has to be C or D, if it's "universal".) 　 If "D" is true, then we have no right to life, because we can not live without the use of land and natural resources. "C" must be true, if we have a right to life, correct? 　 Going back to the initial question: Are all rights universal?...If "B"(no) is true, then the whole argument against the state falls apart. If badges, titles, robes, laws written on a piece of paper, political rituals, etc...don't grant extra rights, why would anything else grant rights to some that others don't have? 　 　 I will attempt to debunk one common argument, before it's even brought up. That being the argument that if everyone has the right to purchase/rent/borrow land & resources that this somehow implies that the right is universal. It does not. Rights are not something than can or should be purchased. Would you consider a slave to be free, if he has a right to purchase himself from his master? Would that not imply that he is rightfully his masters property, until which time he is able to purchase himself? There are many things that we can purchase that are not rights: Healthcare, cars, boats, etc... this does not mean we have a "right" to these things. Something either is, or is not a right. Certainly, I don't now everything. Maybe there's something I've missed. Can anyone prove my hypothesis wrong? If not, I have been successful in making the point that I've intended to make. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

It seems that many think the issue will take care of itself in a stateless society. I'm not sure that it would. I think it all depends on people's understanding of land rights, which is why I bring the issue up. If you don't understand your rights, How will you, or your DRO protect them? I can see that probably most(but not all) people that consider themselves anarchists can at least see that land and natural resources are a different type of property than man-made property. I think most so-called "normal" people(statists) don't. If by some miracle we can convince enough people that the state is un-neccesary, but they still see land monopoly, as it is today under the state, as legitimate, then the problem will still exist.

Wow! What an overwelming response to this post! Thanks to all who have expressed opinions. I've certainly been exposed to some ideas that I hadn't thought about before. Some very valid points made on the topic by nearly everyone. I'm really surprised to find more agreement than I expected. Certainly most of us can agree that the current statist position towards land ownership is inconsistent with libertarian principles, if nothing else. The reason I originally posted this topic, is that it seems to me that it's rarely discussed and also somewhat controversial. I really wish the more prominent anarchists(Molyneux, Larken Rose, etc...) would delve into the subject a little deeper. I really believe it is an important issue. Like one previous commenter put it, probably one of the biggest grey areas in anarchist philosiphy. It was suggested that I bring the issue up on one of Stefans call-in shows. Unfortunately, I have no "Skype" and live in a rural area with a slow internet connection. Maybe some one else could raise the issue sometime. It surely would be an interesting discussion. Once again, Thanx. Boris

It did seem funny to me at first that someone would buy all that land and let it go to waste. Then one of the land owners explained it to me. You see he and a few of his buddies figured out a way to aquire wealth without having to work for it. Without having to produce anything at all! You see everyone needs at least some land in order to survive, and as population increases, or more people move into a certain area(such as myself), demand for productive land will always increase. See, what you do to get money for nothing is try and aquire as much of the land in a given area as possible. If you can aquire enough land that there's none left to homestead, you're well on your way to becoming rich with little or no effort. As demand increases your land's value will also increase. However you'd probably be foolish to sell it even at a profit. The best way to get rich without producing anything is to get others to use the land productively, take a percentage of what the user produces and call it rent!As a matter of fact one of the land-owners I met gave me that option. I could work his land so long as I gave him 50% of everything I produced. Doesn't seem like a very good deal, but I may have to take him up on it. There appears to be no more land around here for me to homestead and I'm getting desperate! I sure don't like the idea of giving a percentage of everything I produce to someone, just so they'll allow me to make a living. It kinda reminds me of something else I experienced back before the state was dissolved. What did they call that?....Taxation?...Yeah that's it Taxation! Actually the more I think about it, it's exactly like taxation. The landlord requires I give him a percentage of the wealth I create in order to live & work on his land! If I don't pay up, I'm in trouble. I see now. Back in the days of the state they had different terminology for it, but it was exactly the same thing! Instead of a landlord, we had politicians. Instead of calling it his land, the politician called it his jurisdiction. Instead of collecting rent, the politicians collected taxes. Either way I do the work & somebody else collects a percentage of the fruit of my labor!Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Another thing that seems odd. If we are both free and equal human beings, how come you get to keep everything you produce & I have to pay a tax of 50% to my landlord?

Are you suggesting that those reciepts are not valid? But, what if they really did pay for all that land?

You're right. I thought so too, but I've been looking all over this area for days and although I've found quite a bit of vacant, unused land, everytime I attempt to start to til the soil, some one comes up to me with a reciept that shows they purchased the land. It appears that all that unused land has been purchased by someone else. Seems a shame that all that good land is going to waste, but they did have a reciept. LOL!!!, Yeah, but if it proves a point....

Great! A very valid point. Your time and labor are yours. Absolutely! Now being that we are both free & equal human beings, please point me to the nearest plot of free land that I might apply my labor to, and grow my own crops, just as you did.

If a DRO chooses to inflict violence upon non-customers, it has to pay for that aggression by some means. It has to sell the idea to it's customers that it's a good idea to aggress against non-customers, because the costs of that aggression would have to be passed down to it's customers. The state simply "taxes" it's subjects to pay for it's violence. A DRO would also have to deal with the fact that non-customers might also be a part of a competing DRO that would defend their interests. Warring DRO's is not a cost-effective way to resolve disputes. It's much more cost-effect to negotiate a peaceful solution with a competing DRO than to constantly be in violent conflict with them.If a DRO that represented you was constantly raising rates to fund violence against non-customers, how long would you continue to be it's customer, especially if their was the option of joining a DRO who's costs were less and didn't use violence to resolve disputes? In a free market the best, most cost-effective methods will rise to the top. With monopoly(which is what the state is), there is no competition & you're just stuck with what you're stuck with.

Please do. Very well put!

You are suggesting that because I don't have a solution, that a problem can't exist? Isn't the first step in solving a problem identifying the problem? How can one EVER expect to solve a problem, if he doesn't know what the problem is. What makes a DRO morally superior to a state is that a DRO would have to satisfy it's customers, while a state is a monopoly. If you don't like the way your DRO is handling matters, you can simply fire it & do business with a different DRO. You can't fire a "state". A state does whatever it wants claiming that it has "the right to rule". If you don't like what the state does, tough shit!

I wish there was an example in an anarchist society. Unfortunatly, I don't know of any. Do you? How many people there is that want to homestead is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that if rights are "universal" which anarchists claim(& which, by the way, I agree with.), then you can't say that some have a right to homestead and others don't. If you do, you contradict yourself. You stated "already dealt with in many books" as your argument against my statement that "Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership.".How am I suppost to respond? You don't mention any books by name, You don't quote any books. This is the equivilent of you stating: "We all need oxygen to breath" & me saying "no we don't. People already wrote books bout it". It disproves nothing.

#3 - Haven't read those books. Please explain.#4 - Can I give massages, dance, therapy, etc... without oxygen to breathe? Without food in my belly to provide the energy needed to perform such tasks? Can I dance, massage, etc... without a piece of ground to stand on while performing these activities?#7 - If a person has a monopoly over a given piece of land, he doesn't have to be efficient. He has eliminated competition on that particular piece of land by claiming he, and only he has a right to use it. If someone else has the ability to use that land more efficiently, but has no right to do so, what does it matter? Never once claimed to have the solution. Don't mean to come off as a "know it all". I just said I "believe" these to be undisputable facts. If you can prove I'm wrong, then do so. I'm always willing to listen to a contrary opinion.

I can see that I'm not going to change your mind, so I won't bother anymore either. Just trust the "experts". It's much easier than thinking for yourself.

wdiaz03, I'll agree to disagree. I'm going leave you all(for now) with what I believe to be 8 undisputable facts that everyone should consider when forming an opinion on this issue. Forgive me if I repeat many of my earlier points. This is meant to be more of a re-cap, than a new argument. 1) Land and natural resources such as air, water, etc...are necessary for human life(one would not live long floating in outer space). 2) The earth is finite. All earthly resources are fixed in supply. 3) Land/natural resources are not the product of human labor, so their exclusive ownership can not be morally justified by self-ownership. There MUST be some other principle involved to justify ownership. 4) Labor on it's own can produce nothing. It requires resources to work with before it can produce anything of value. 5) No matter how far back you trace the buying and selling of a given piece of land, you can never trace it back to the person that produced it. 6) When one trades for(or purchases) a given piece of land or natural resource, he is not trading for the product of someones labor, he is only purchasing the priviledge of "monopolizing" that particular piece of land/resource. 7) Monopoly reduces competition. The more concentrated the ownership of land/natural resources, the less competition there is, to use them more efficiently. 8) If some have the right of free access to land/nature via the homesteading process, and others do not, this implies that some have more rights than others simply based upon when they were born, or when they arrived upon a particular piece of land/resource.