Is homesteading UPB?

[Andrew79]

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.

I'm starting with the NAP.

And surely UPB says if it's ok for one group of people to value land and collect rent on it then it should be ok for everyone to do the same.

The principle is not applied to computers, because someone else can make their own.

If [widget x] uses some of the earth's natural resources - minerals, etc. - that can't be replenished, I don't see the difference. As for monopolies, they thrive under the state, they quickly collapse on the free market.

We know that the most efficient way to make use of scarce resources is through a market. You don't even need any theories for this, you can simply watch the state try to provide anything - you'll see shortages, poor quality, and inadaquate supply.

I don't see a difference for land. And again, all you need to do is have a look around you to see who causes problems with land, and it's not the free market.

[NathanCJohnson]

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
 

[NathanCJohnson]

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.

[NathanCJohnson]

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

[NathanCJohnson]

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 

[TheRobin]

 

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
 

 

Okay, but then I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I say and the principle put forward. I never claimed that anyone just owns land ad infitum, so why is the principle of creation/use/modification not good enough?

Now I'm the first to admit I have no idea about homesteading in any formal sense and I'm really just here to see if the principle I would use actually would work or if there's a fundamental flaw to it, so I can't argue using other people's philosophies in homesteading or bring up famous names and know what they mean or stand for. I still hope it doesn't make debate impossible.

[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?

[NathanCJohnson]

I'd argue that the anacaps are making the same mistake as the Marxist by putting land and capital in the same category.

[TheRobin]

 

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?

 

The first question that comes to mind is sold or rented by whom? One has to own something first before one can sell or rent it to others. So unimproved land would be simply unused land or unowned land, so who would do the selling? (always assuming its legitimate and not mere whimsical force in the sense of "If you pay me I'm not gonna shoot you if you're gonna use that scrap of unowned land").

In regards to capital and land: If you think they are used incorrectly, can you provide a clear definition of each and show how that accurately describes reality? Or how you see the terms being used incorrectly and how/why the definitions don't accurately describe reality?

[Andrew79]

 

I'd argue that the anacaps are making the same mistake as the Marxist by putting land and capital in the same category.

 

A rather disingenuous smear attempt when it is the LVTers who have the Marxist approach to land:

The first plank of Marx's communist manifesto is "Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes."

[NathanCJohnson]

I recognize that many use Marxist as an insult, but my pointing out a similarity was not meant to disparage.  Marx has key errors but also valid points.  I think many of us would agree with Marxist criticisms of imperialism for instance.I think the more harmful tenets of Marxism is the abolition of private property that is the fruit of one's labor.  This is very damaging and destructive and was opposed by George.

[AdamC]

 

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.

 

It is true that land is not the result of human action. And without a consistent principle to appeal to, "land" ownership seems completely arbitrary.

The problem is the definition of "land". There is physical land (rocks, minerals, water, soil, vegetation, animals, etc) and spatial land (geographical "space" or "location").

The "Homesteading Principle" says that the transformation of physical land AND the exclusion of others from spatial land ("embordering") is sufficient to establish property. When Anarcho-Capitalists claim they "own" land, they are not claiming to have transformed spatial land (which is impossible) but are claiming to have made an effort to alert others of their wish to exclude others from a location (by "embordering" that location with a fence) in order to protect the property resting there, property which is the result of their human action (e.g., a planted field, house).

Some (but not all) Geoists (of various political stripes) argue that valid property is only the transformation of physical land, and that exclusion from supra-marginal spatial land should be compensated using a land-value "tax" (statist) or rent-sharing/land dues (voluntaryist). This reciprocal compensation is intended to prevent rent-seeking on rising land values in those locations that have become especially attractive due to the supra-marginal economic and social opportunities available there. Even in a stateless society absent the state's expenditure on public works, some locations will be desired above others and competition for access to those locations will result in higher land-values ("rent"/"geo-rent"/"ground rent").

Because of the "Homesteading Principle" derivation of property and the ability to capitalize land values (rent) into money stuffs, Anarcho-Capitalists don't easily recognize the distinction between land and capital. And because of Robinson Crusoe economics, Anarcho-Capitalists don't easily understand how economic progress leads to poverty in those locations where rent-seeking on rising land values is rife. Fred Foldvary explains how rent-seeking on rising land values initiates the credit (mortgage) expansion phase in each business cycle.

Where Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarchist-Geoists can agree is that IF rent-seeking is a problem in any particular location, people will find voluntary geoist (or other market) solutions to prevent adverse accumulation. But Anarcho-Capitalists and Geoist are certain to disagree if the Capitalist asserts that anything other than transformation/human action results in property, and if the Geoist claims that "land" (in total or portion) is owned collectively by all mankind as a "birth right" absent any human action.

If ownership derives from transformation/human action, then it is property that is owned and not physical "land", physical "land" being that which is left remaining after transformation. If spatial "land" cannot be transformed, then spatial "land" cannot be owned as property, it can only be used exclusively (or collectively). In short, despite verbal claims to the contrary, "land" cannot be owned and should not be heard to be "owned."

I favor the geoist conception of property derived strictly from transformation/human action, and I reject spatial exclusion (as in the "Homesteading Principle") as any basis of property ownership, recognizing "embordering" only as the means by which others are alerted to an intent of exclusive use of a location/space. The concept of property is supposed to prevent disputes. Ultimately, it is the agreement of those local to one's "homestead" that is the reciprocal security of local "homesteads". Agreement requires clear principles that are sensitive to local conditions, particularly market demand for locations since space cannot be produced:

In those locations where competition for exclusion is high, it seems likely voluntary geoist rent-sharing would be the easiest means to secure an exclusion of space for oneself whilst respecting the spatial exclusions of others. Where competition for exclusion is low or none at all, then mere verbal claims of ownership of "land" (physical or spatial) have no consequence for the validity of property since there is no one there to contest such claims.

[NathanCJohnson]

Adam, Really nice post.  That is a key point that property rights are derived from excluding others.  So if someone hunts in an area but doesn't make an effort to exclude others, he might later find himself excluded from an area by someone who does.  This concept rewards people who exclude others from mutually using the land.  

[RestoringGuy]

It can be transformational or exclusionary, but there is still subjective acceptance of a landmarker while the owner is absent.  The exact same thing occurs with dead people.   While a living person is away from homestead, there are fences and arbitrary markers supposedly binding on people who never agreed to obligate themselves to them.  While a dead person is decomposing, there are wills and heirs with the same constraints applied to those who never agreed to self-obligate.  We are only culturally inclined to believe in these things and the extent to which they apply to people who are living and present.  It does not seem compatible with anything universal.

 

[NathanCJohnson]

Good to find some others familiar Georgism on the board.  I got a chance to speak briefly to Stef at Anarchy in NY about it and it was a new concept to him.  I really think George provides a morally preferable 3rd way between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism.

[AdamC]

While a living person is away from homestead, there are fences and arbitrary markers supposedly binding on people who never agreed to obligate themselves to them.

Ultimately, present and absentee exclusions are only as secure as the reciprocal agreement of community members to respect exclusions (optionally upon condition e.g., Georgist/Geoist rent-sharing), as well as a likely commitment to protect exclusions from roaming outsiders (justified to the outsiders as the protection of body and other property resting there). Claiming an exclusion of spatial land is an "ownership" or a "property right" doesn't create any additional security or binding obligation upon others since neither physical nor spatial land can be owned as property, if property is strictly the result of transformation:

Transformed (e.g., relocated) physical land is called "property". Untransformed physical land is called "land" (not property). Spatial "land" cannot be transformed.

[AdamC]

 

Good to find some others familiar Georgism on the board.  I got a chance to speak briefly to Stef at Anarchy in NY about it and it was a new concept to him.  I really think George provides a morally preferable 3rd way between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism.

 

Same here. It's heartening to know there are others who make the crucial distinction between land and capital (and thereby avoid the unnecessary polarization of capitalists vs communists).

I'm not in agreement with the Georgist/Geoist moral theory that land value (rent) is owed to all of humanity. I see voluntary (Geoanarchist) rent-sharing as a practical (not moral) solution to settling disputes over who gets to exclude others from supra-marginal land, and to protecting the economic growth and social stability of communities from rent-seeking behaviour.

You might enjoy these articles:

 

The Geolibertarian Ethics of Land Rent

The Rent, the Whole Rent, and Nothing but the Rent

Is the Real Estate Market Voluntary?

[NathanCJohnson]

 

I'm not in agreement with the Georgist/Geoist moral theory that land value (rent) is owed to all of humanity. 

 

That's not the georgist theory I've encounter or endose either.  What I've learned is that there should be open borders and the rent is owed to those who are excluded.  This is those who are in close proximity who are reasonablly sacrificing their ability to come on to the land.  Those in close proximity also create the local economy that gives the land value.  This is why a few square feet in Manhattan is worth more then many acres in a rural area. The community creates the value, so the rent should return to the community as a citizen dividend or a projects that further enhance the value of the land.  If for instance, you look at the increase in land value that building a subway stop provides, that increase collected as rent could be enough to fund the creation of the subway.  This is not a coercive immoral tax like taxing labor or trade, because it is only owed to the extent one excludes others.  And using a citizen dividend if your land value is less then what others on average claim there is nothing to pay.  

[AdamC]

 

 

That's not the georgist theory I've encounter or endose either.  What I've learned is that there should be open borders and the rent is owed to those who are excluded.  This is those who are in close proximity who are reasonablly sacrificing their ability to come on to the land.  Those in close proximity also create the local economy that gives the land value.  This is why a few square feet in Manhattan is worth more then many acres in a rural area. The community creates the value, so the rent should return to the community as a citizen dividend or a projects that further enhance the value of the land.  If for instance, you look at the increase in land value that building a subway stop provides, that increase collected as rent could be enough to fund the creation of the subway.  This is not a coercive immoral tax like taxing labor or trade, because it is only owed to the extent one excludes others.  And using a citizen dividend if your land value is less then what others on average claim there is nothing to pay.  

 

This is well explained, though I'm not certain what you mean by open borders.

For reference: “the branch of libertarian philosophy which deems the natural rent to equally belong to human beings" (Foldvary also envisages rent-sharing beginning on a local scale.)

 

The community creates the value, so the rent should return to the
community as a citizen dividend or a projects that further enhance the
value of the land.

 

This is the moral *should* I have trouble accepting – and perhaps I'm unnecessarily complicating the issue.

I understand that a location becomes even more valuable due to the economic and social activity of the community members working and living nearby, but the idea that they are *owed* that value seems off to me.

We don't own value, we only own things (property) that are valued. Since land value (rent) isn't a thing, the members of the community cannot have been deprived of it and so cannot be *owed* it or claim it *should* be returned.

(The complaint of being owed value also arises from the notion of inflation of the money supply being a "theft" or a "tax". Whilst it is true that inflation causes a reduction in the value or "purchasing power" of the money one holds, it doesn't deprive one of any amount of the money one holds. No-thing has been taken away as it would have been with a theft or a tax.)

The community members cannot create value in the sense that they can demand that potential joiners *should* give any particular market value to their presence and activity. And those existing community members excluded from superior locations cannot demand that the excluders give any particular market value to those exclusions. So the excluded are not *owed*.

Because the notion of being *owed* the value or a "return" of the value seems to falsely imply a deprivation, I can only agree that members of the community can (rather than should) voluntarily agree to share land value to compensate each other for exclusions, and because it is generally true that their activity further increases the market value of locations, it is better that they, rather than a speculative rent-seeker, capture that value and distribute it amongst themselves in proportion to the value of their exclusions.

Again, I could be unnecessarily complicating the issue. My aim is to avoid the advocacy of unreasonable moral shoulds, particularly where those shoulds would adversely impact those not in agreement, e.g., Geoists/Georgists forcibly redistributing land value amongst non-geoists on the basis that they *should*.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

UPB would only come into play if someone contests the homesteading of some land. They would have to put forward a theory that explains why the homesteading was not UPB and therefore immoral. If the contestor says the owner has no right to exclude them from the land because it was originally obtained in some immoral way then they have to explain what gives THEM rights to the land. How is THEIR claim UPB?

Anyone can homestead any piece of unused land. As far as I can it is UPB because so far I've heard no objections to homesteading that don't blow up in the objectors face.

I'm not sure how one would morally exclude others by the intiation of force. By defintion that would be immoral.

I think we DO produce land in some sense. That is if you view land as useful space that may have resources. When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.

[PatrickC]

I think we DO produce land in some sense. That is if you view land as useful space that may have resources. When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.

Yes, this is how cities are produced of course.. However, to start out, it carries some potential risk, since it might just develop into a small hamlet or less even. On a more meta point in this regards. We can all benefit from people developing their property, because it can flourish into a much richer resource in time, as in cities etc. So I think the question of those who benefits, is not necessasrily just a landlowner or landlord if that makes sense. Many people can benefit from a personally unowned resource created, owned and developed by others.

[NathanCJohnson]

Adam,

By open borders I mean open immigration. Compensation should be given to those who are excluded, so if the rest of the world is not excluded from coming to your area, there is no necessity for compensation.  If the force of the state is used to exclude others from your area, then you are relying on violence, rather then a mutually beneficial transaction.

I agree that no one is naturally owed money or goods, but everyone needs access to land.  We "should" look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other, and compensating others for restricting their access makes sense.

[NathanCJohnson]

 

I think we DO produce land in some sense. That is if you view land as useful space that may have resources. When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.

. We can all benefit from people developing their property, because it can flourish into a much richer resource in time, as in cities etc. So I think the question of those who benefits, is not necessasrily just a landlowner or landlord if that makes sense. 

 

Yes this is true.  This is why geoist don't advocate a confiscatory property tax but collection of ground rent.  With property tax, a lot in Manhattan with a beautiful skyscraper on it pays much more property tax then an undevelop, unkempt lot.  The person who develops land is punished.  Currently someone can own an urban vacant lot and see his value rise through the years as the community brings value and he does nothing. By collecting ground rent, land will move from those who keep it idle to those who can economically develop it.

 

[NathanCJohnson]

 

I'm not sure how one would morally exclude others by the intiation of force. By defintion that would be immoral.

 

So if I come on your land, you or the government as your agent cannot initiate force against me? If you cannot exclude me from your land, then it is a public space.  

[NathanCJohnson]

 

 If the contestor says the owner has no right to exclude them from the land because it was originally obtained in some immoral way then they have to explain what gives THEM rights to the land. How is THEIR claim UPB?

 

I think the onus would be on the one who wants to exclude them.  I would guess much less then 1% of land owners could trace back a line of ownership back to homesteading.  Even if they could go back centuries, they would almost invariablely find that the title does not come from being the first to use the land but to some state sanctioned title. Even if a mixing labor with virgin soil were a valid way to secure an indefinite property claim, it is not the basis of the vast majority of land titles.  The state has written the history of land ownership, and those not in positions state privledge who previously used a land, found their history not recorded by the state.

[PatrickC]

Currently someone can own an urban vacant lot and see his value rise through the years as the community brings value and he does nothing. By

Yes, but you missed my earlier point from the same post. They could just as easily found their development valueless. The fact they took a risk developing land with a certain unknown prospect attached deserves some recompense in terms of value. Saying they did nothing is an over simplification, because they did.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

I'm not sure how one would morally exclude others by the intiation of force. By defintion that would be immoral.

 

So if I come on your land, you or the government as your agent cannot initiate force against me? If you cannot exclude me from your land, then it is a public space.  

 

No, hang on.  If the land is legitimately owned by me then the person coming on the land is initiating force. They are in some sense violating my property. So any force I use is defensive, not an intiation. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

 If the contestor says the owner has no right to exclude them from the land because it was originally obtained in some immoral way then they have to explain what gives THEM rights to the land. How is THEIR claim UPB?

 

I think the onus would be on the one who wants to exclude them.  I would guess much less then 1% of land owners could trace back a line of ownership back to homesteading.  Even if they could go back centuries, they would almost invariablely find that the title does not come from being the first to use the land but to some state sanctioned title. Even if a mixing labor with virgin soil were a valid way to secure an indefinite property claim, it is not the basis of the vast majority of land titles.  The state has written the history of land ownership, and those not in positions state privledge who previously used a land, found their history not recorded by the state.

 

If the contestor is arguing the owner has no right to exclude them because of this then by the same standard the contestor has no right to claim ownership of the land either. They'd be making a self-detonating argument. 

[TheRobin]

I'm beginning to think thw whole argument boils down to this: "Everyone needs land. Therefore everyone should have a right to have land. Therefore everyone should have a right to compensation for not be able to use a specific chunk of land."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

"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.

 

Lots of people get there first and do nothing with the resource. If someone wants compensation then the developer of the resource must have created value from it, otherwise the resource would have no current value (oil in the ground or fish in the sea are not inhernetly valuable). So what person X is saying is that they are owed a part of person Y's labour because if it hadn't have been for person X just happening to get there first person Y could have used the resource to create value. But person X is already compensated because person Y is saved from having to use their labour and take risks to create the value. Nothing has been taken from person Y other than a possible opportunity. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

I'm beginning to think thw whole argument boils down to this: "Everyone needs land. Therefore everyone should have a right to have land. Therefore everyone should have a right to compensation for not be able to use a specific chunk of land."

 

If that's the argument then everyone would always have to compensate everyone else at all times and places. If I deserve compensation because I can't use your land then you deserve compensation because you can't use mine. If a city of people have a right to compensation from a big oil company because the residents are excluded from their oil-fields then the big-oil company has a right to compensation because THEY are excluded from those residents homes, etc.

[AdamC]

 

By open borders I mean open immigration. Compensation should be given to those who are excluded, so if the rest of the world is not excluded from coming to your area, there is no necessity for compensation.  If the force of the state is used to exclude others from your area, then you are relying on violence, rather then a mutually beneficial transaction. I agree that no one is naturally owed money or goods, but everyone needs access to land.  We "should" look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other, and compensating others for restricting their access makes sense.

 

Every location is a monopoly; there is no human action that creates more space! Humans have a desire to exclude, and for exclusion to have any meaning, the rest of the humanity is necessarily excluded.

This is why I back away from the geoist *should* of compensation to all humanity. This should implies that if people are not currently sharing rent, then they are acting immorally, and some kind of action will be taken (by those acting morally) to compel them to start sharing rent. But people aren't already explicitly sharing geo-rent (except very minimally in places like Arden, Delware), and I lack the imagination to see how people can starting act morally – right now, this second – in accordance with the standard geoist *should*. Thus, I regard this *should* as unreasonable.

I agree we should always look for mutually beneficial ways to interact with each other and not resort to violence to give only the appearance of settling disputes.

Compensating members (of a proprietary community defined by a geographical area) for spatial exclusions makes sense IF you wish to live in a community without rent-seekers and where the members can appeal to an objective principle in order to settle exclusion disputes. (I think it is vital to note that these sorts of disputes will likely only arise in locations where there is superior "land" nearby. And since there's no way to anticipate in advance this superiority without a market for exclusions, we can't know that the people locating themselves there *could* or *should* share rent.) I imagine rent-sharing is only possible on a voluntary basis within small scale communities, and I anticipate that some of these communities will combine to become greater associations and thus furthering the standard geoist aim of "all humanity".

I accept every human being needs access to physical and spatial "land", and also accept that to be a living human being, one must already be enjoying access to at least spatial "land" – e.g., I have access to my body (transformed physical "land"), and my body is located in space (untransformable spatial "land").

BUT – the great geoist (or "geo-classical") insight is that we don't – and can't – all have access to the same quality of "land" (market-assessed by the economic and social opportunities) and thus there exist inequalities of opportunity that predatory rent-seekers seek to capitalize on. So I completely agree that – IF the need arises – compensating others for restricting access to locations makes sense. Perhaps that sense is a kind of moral justice. I'm not sure. Convince me!

[AdamC]

 

If the contestor is arguing the owner has no right to exclude them because of this then by the same standard the contestor has no right to claim ownership of the land either. They'd be making a self-detonating argument. 

 

This conflates exclusion with "ownership". (I anticipate you won't agree that it is a conflation.) It is true that the contestor can't demand an exclusive exclusion, accepting as he does the value of excusion to them both, and also the common humanity and thus equal access to universal moral principles.

Because "land" isn't property, what's going on here – morally – is this: Is the contestor willing to initiate aggression against the body (property) of the prior excluder in order to compel him to give up his exclusion?

Phrased another way: There are two people standing in space trying to negotiate the location of things (their bodies) within that space. Will they peacefully negotiate or not?

[AdamC]

Definition: LAND: The entire material universe exclusive of people and their products.

As far as I understand it, the "Homesteading Principle" isn't a moral argument, rather it is an attempt to define property.

I argue the "Homesteading Principle" is internally inconsistent in its attempt to define property. That is to say, it is an argument containing two propositions that contradict each other:

(1) Property is the result of human action applied to things in space - [Possible]
(2) Property is the result of human action applied to space itself - [impossible]

For the concept of property to be useful, it has to be the result of something possible and actual. (1) is possible. (2) is impossible. The "Homesteading Principle" is thus no principle at all. It should be called the "Homesteading Preference" - the preference to refer to "land" (spatial land, in particular) as "property" despite the fact that it is not the result of transformation by human action.

If someone can demonstrate human action being applied to space (2) with an objectively verifiable result (e.g., space being relocated to another space, or more space being produced), then I'm happy to accept the "Homesteading Principle" as internally consistent. But moving things around in space (e.g., setting out a fence in an attempt to "emborder" space) is not sufficient to demonstrate (2), it only demonstrates (1). And if (2) cannot be demonstrated by BOTH reason and evidence, then why should anyone accept it as derivation of property?

At best the notion of "Homesteading" is an attempt to harmonize two opposite ideas about property: (1) Property is derived from human action, and (2) Property is derived from non-human action (or property is not derived from human action but is derived by decree). The problem with asserting (2) is that (1) inevitably loses its meaning!

It seems far more sensible to say there is a "Property Principle" based strictly on human action on things (1), and an "Exclusion Principle" – a manifested desire to exclude others from accessing a location/space with a commitment to respect the exclusions of others. Both of these principles are then available to proof by non-contradiction (i.e., argumentation ethics and dialogical estoppel).

As I wrote earlier in the thread: When Anarcho-Capitalists claim they "own" land, they are not claiming to have transformed spatial land (which is impossible) but are claiming to have made an effort to alert others of their wish to exclude others from a location (by "embordering" that location with a fence) in order to protect the property resting there, property which is the result of their human action (e.g., a planted field, house).

The role played by man in production always consists solely in combining his personal forces with the forces of Nature in such a way that the cooperation leads to some particular desired arrangement of material. No human act of production amounts to more than altering the position of things in space and leaving the rest to Nature. — Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit

A farmer farms/plows/tills his soil, that is, he transforms physical "land" into fertile soil as his property which he thus owns. He then attempts to protect his property by denying others access to the location in which his property rests. But he doesn't (and never did) own "land", and hasn't appropriated "land", only soil: In the very act of appropriation, the physical "land" he grasped/relocated became his property, and what he did not grasp/relocate remained as "land" or "nature" (Mises).

Transformed physical "land" is called "property". Untransformed physical "land" is called "land" and is said to be "unowned" and therefore not property since it has yet to be transformed. We "own" things as property because we have transformed them, the minimum transformation being to relocate a thing in space (e.g., to grasp and it reposition it). Basically, we own our transformations since only they are our own.

When we accept that we cannot grasp space, cannot relocate space, cannot relocate a location, then we can accept that spatial "land" is not the result of human action, and therefore not available to the idea of property. Human action applied to physical "land" creates property. We can use the term "land" to refer to that which is NOT property. If we want to be specific, we can divide "land" into "physical" and "spatial" (or similar descriptors) - this fitting with our empirical observations.

 

When we build a skyscraper we are making land. If we change land in some beneficial way we have produced it.

 

A skyscrapper or city or airplane is an accumulation of "things in space" (Mises), the rest being "land" or "nature" (Mises). A human body or any other legitimate from of transformed property is an accumulation of "things in space", the rest being "land" and therefore not property.

To say a skyscrapper is "land" is to say that what was the result of human action has reverted back to nature i.e., it is unowned. For the purposes of common understanding, it is either a skyscrapper or it is "land".

Whilst it is true that all property derives from transforming physical land, we don't call a car "land" or a human body "land". We apply linguistic labels to the things we transform in order to communicate their intended purpose. I don't accept the idea of a skyscrapper being called "land", but will gladly acknowledge that a skyscrapper is the result of transforming physical "land", and that it rests in spatial "land". 

Resources exist in space. Space is a resource (in the sense of being useful to humans), but space can't be produced by human action, and can't be moved or otherwise transformed by human action. Thus we distinguish transformed physical "land" (i.e., property or capital) from untransformed and untransformable spatial "land" (i.e., non-property or "land"/location).

Capital occupies space; land is space. — Mason Gaffney, Land as a Distinctive Factor of Production

We neither own physical nor spatial "land": We can only transform physical "land" into property (and thereby create a verifiable objective/intersubjective "ownership" of that property via our "own" transformation), and we can only use spatial "land" i.e., locate and relocate in space our bodies and other forms of legitimate transformed property.

To paraphrase Mises: Property amounts to no more than altering the position of things in space.

---
I could be massively wrong about all this, and fully acknowledge that I'm questioning centuries of tradition. But tradition isn't necessarily based on reason and evidence, and I can only be corrected by reason and evidence.

[AdamC]

 

The fact they took a risk developing land with a certain unknown prospect attached deserves some recompense in terms of value. Saying they did nothing is an over simplification, because they did.

 

Isn't that the labor theory of value?

The prospector moved their body in space seeking some kind of material advantage. So where is the material of the sought advantage? Did they transform physical "land" into property? They certainly didn't transform spatial "land".