Is homesteading UPB?

[NathanCJohnson]

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

[RestoringGuy]

"Without compensation" always gives unearned privilege to who gets there first.  I think market compensation is owed to everybody who is forcibly excluded from a resource built by nobody,  Nothing is a gift from God.

[NathanCJohnson]

So your a Georgist/geolibertarian RestoringGuy?

[PatrickC]

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?

Without first reading through the links you've provided, which I will do later. I just wanted to point out that it's not 'production' of the land that denotes ownership. It is the productive output that happens on that land. For instance, it is highly doubtful that anyone is going to want to own a piece of land such as a deep gorge in the Himalaya’s. Since this land will be very difficult to access and will be of relatively little use to anyone. However, land that serves a purpose for living, leisure or manufacture will be highly sought after and will likely end up being owned by those that make the most productive use of it.

Inherited land such as that belonging to royalty, or land that was rufflessly stolen from previous legitimate owners is an area I have heard An Caps discuss, as well as Stef. It would seem that some kind of reparation and repatriation would have to be negotiated. How that would work out in reality, I'm not entirely sure myself. But the principle sounds about right and fits into UPB.

[TheRobin]

I think the ambiguous term here is "land". What does that include and what not? Does it include the plants and trees? How many meters deep does it count? If there's an oil reserve 500 meters below surface of the land, does someone who uses the land on the surface also get the right to use that below? If not where is the cutoff point? Same goes for the area above the ground of course.I've never been too exposed to any homestead principle, but what makes sense to me is the following (and I hope this isn't that infamous effect of knowing so little, that I assume I know more than average ): 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. So if I plow a field, I own the plowed field. If I plant some fruittrees, I own the fruit trees.I'm not really clear in what regards that applies to the question of owning "land" the way you mean it (because as I said, it seems quite the vague term to me), but it seems it solves the problem of ownership when it comes to ownership of some part of our environment.

[thornyd]

I've often struggled with this concept as well, but an interesting persepctive that I have found helpful is to imagine the planet as a spaceship. On a spaceship everything would be already owned by people, and a person born into this spaceship community would work to gain property, or have property given to them. No child would ever be born thinking they were owed some property that they had not been given. With that in mind, it is impossible to exclude someone from property that was never theirs.

I realise that doesn't really help to figure out who should have the right to un-owned property, but I think it helps dispel the notion that we all have the right to land just because we were born.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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

[PatrickC]

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.

How is that a problem and more importantly how does that effect UPB?

Just to point out that renting or leasing land is an entirely reasonable way of using and owning land. If the owner or landlord has developed the land in such a manner that it is useful to others, then it's entirely reasonable to still assume them ownership. Also they're many people that only want to utilise the land for a temporary period of time and not have all the responsibilities and liabilities that will come with owning the land.

[DaVinci]

 

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.

 

 

This is true today in almost every place excpet the middle of roads and public parks, and people get drug out of those areas all the time by cops. I got kicked out of a "public park" at night before years ago when I was doing nothing worng. I wasn't using drugs, or drinking etc.

[TheRobin]

 

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.

 

xelent has summed it up pretty neatly, so I'm not gonna repeat what he already wrote.

But, fundamentaly: How is that any different from renting/selling any other part or product of ones labour?

And from a purely economic/efficiency standpoint: Isn't that exactly what you want to reduce the costs anyway? If a person can plow 10 times as many fields in the same time as most people plow one field, then all the other people will save a lot of time and money simply buying or renting the plowed field from that person, thus increasing overall profit and efficiency.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[Andrew79]

It is the community that surrounds the city land that gives the land value.

How do you calculate the "unearned" value of land?

Who calculates it?

Who collects it?

How are the calculators/collectors regulated?

What does the money go towards?

What if someone doesn't want to pay?

If the value becomes negative, would the owner receive a subsidy?

Are there geographical cut-off points, if so why and how are they calculated?

Should the principle be applied to other goods (e.g. my computer used raw materials that are now no longer available for anyone else to use) if not why not?

Why is the free market not capable of solving land issues?

 

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[TheRobin]

I'm not sure what you meant with "any arbitrary homestead principle". 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. If he ignores it to the degree that it can no longer reasonable called a "plowed field" (i.e. when it's mostly indistinguishable from any non-previously-plowed field) then logically he can no longer claim ownership of a (now non-existent) plowed field.And if that person continues to maintain those fields, then how is that any different from any other business?You seem to completely accept the usual principles in ownership in any other area, so what is the reason for the exception of this particular environment from the principle?The idea that "if I live next to it, I own it, together with everyone else who lives next to it" doesn't apply in any other case, so why here?

[thornyd]

"you don't get to exclude someone from our common heritage of the land without negotiating some compensation"

How is land our common heritage? Why should people be compensated - what has been denied to them?

Does this theory only apply to land on Earth? If I set up a mining operation on an asteroid full of mineral resources, do I then owe you something? Am I inflicting some kind of harm on you by claiming that land for myself? If nobody but me knows of my asteroid mine, then do I still owe people something?

[thornyd]

 

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.

 

You are certainly right about your speech being subject to the property owner's approval.

But why would someone who doesn't own land have NO inalienable rights? They still have all the rights any other human being is born with simply by virtue of being a person - the right to self-ownership and to be free from aggression.

As a side note, I find it interesting to observe that people who object to private land-ownership often have a paranoia of being helpless and abandoned in a cold, uncaring world full of high fences and locked doors. StormCloudsGathering had similar concerns about being unable to freely express himself in a world where he has no property and therefore no inalienable rights. But how would you just pop into the world owning absolutely nothing, with no family or friends to stay with? This view of the world seems pretty sad and bleak to me... but I can totally relate to it. I know I certainly felt that way as a kid in public school.

[PatrickC]

Just to add as extra to the excellent points that have been mentioned. Modern day property and land speculation is due to govts throughout the world controlling and regulating the market. Thus driving prices up and up by deliberately making it harder for land owners and builders to decide what they can and can't do with their land and property.

You simply can't compare apples with oranges I'm afraid.

[NathanCJohnson]

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]

[NathanCJohnson]

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? 

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[TheRobin]

 

Robin " 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"

So is all unplowed land unowned or is there another underlying principle? 

 

Are you really intersted in finding a valid principle for landownership?

You ignore a good part of the questions that would help me understand your reasoning or principle behind your conclusion. You cherry pick sentences, ignore half of it and then distort the rest of it so you don't have to respond to what I actually wrote.

[PatrickC]

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.

Freedom of speech is only a right given to you by your benevolent masters. It's never been considered as 'inalienable', despite being often conflated as such. The right has always been used as a propaganda tool by mainly democratic states to hoodwink their population into believing they are free.

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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?

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[TheRobin]

Again, I'd say that's where the part of "modified the environment" comes into play.That's why I said that "land" is too vague a term to be useful. That's why I said, "if you plow a field, you have created a plowed field, so you own the plowed field". Or if you create a tunnel you have created a walkable area within a hill/mountain that wasn't there before so you own this area.In regards to the deer question: I also don't see how someone could reasonably claim ownership of a part of land because they killed some deer on it. Because they neither created something nor modified the environment.But can you answer me the question I asked before about your principle of common ownership? Because it seems to me its about "I live next to it, so I own it", and that doesn't make much sense to me either. (And is just as arbitrary imo). Or what is the principle that gives someone ownership by simply being in relative close proximity to it?

[PatrickC]

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?

Before i go to inalienable rights I first look for UPB and the NAP. Having said that, an inalienable right will never cause you to break either UPB or the NAP. Freedom of speech only exists because we have a political system that if we were to take it at all seriously, requires people the ability to express their views in the public domain. Since private property is not part of the public domain (at least in an AnCap world) it has little use within that setting.

I totally understand that when reparations are called for that inevitably (due to a lack of knowledge) some existing property and land ownership might escape proper repatriation. This will be partly due to the family and kin of previous owners not being alive. Also the complexities of multiple ownership and simply not knowing. However, this should not be a cause for conflict, since it will be in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful resolution. I appreciate that isn't the most succinct answer, but you can't blame the future's failure to make amends for the injustices of those historic individuals that were the main perpetrators. I hope that makes sense.

 

[NathanCJohnson]

.: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 

[TheRobin]

haven't seen the latest post before my post so:To me the question seems a bit like asking "how do we restitute the people for all the moeny stolen in the form of taxation?". First, there's no "we". "We" didn't steal anything (that also applies to the land). Secondly, I don't understand the idea of "distributing the land", as that would mean ownership and the obligation to end that ownership.But anyone who owns something (including soil and earth) by principle of usage/creation can't justly be made to give up that ownership. And all other claims of ownership are illegitimate anyway, so there's no need to give up ownership (as there is none to begin with).So I have a hard time understanding where a need for redistrbution would apply here in the first place.And to bring up again another question I asked earlier: Can you explain to me where you see the difference in things like guitars and computers and things like earth and rocks that you seem to apply different principles of how ownership can and is established?

[TheRobin]

 

.:1:1:1:comment490653400997270_490989314297012.:0.:1.:0.:1.:0.:0.:0:2.:0.:6]
"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 

 

Maybe I miss the obvious here but: If the improvement is the property but the not the ground, then why would anyone own anybody else rent? Why can someone demand rent for something which he doesn't own (the ground)? What am I missing here?

[NathanCJohnson]

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.”