Is homesteading UPB?

[NathanCJohnson]

Adam, I've quoted some of your material in an online discussion and referenced here.  Is this your original work?  Are there articles online you've written that I should reference instead?

[NathanCJohnson]

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are assuming there must be ownership of space.  If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating.  They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else.  Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce. 

[NathanCJohnson]

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are assuming there must be ownership of space.  If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating.  They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else.  Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce. 

[NathanCJohnson]

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are assuming there must be ownership of space.  If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating.  They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else.  Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce. 

[NathanCJohnson]

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are assuming there must be ownership of space.  If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating.  They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else.  Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce. 

[NathanCJohnson]

 

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. 

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. 

 

You are assuming there must be ownership of space.  If neither has ownership of the land it is not self-detonating.  They can either use the land mutually, or they can negotiate an agreement whereby one gives up access to the land in exchange for something else.  Mutually beneficial exchange is the basis of the prosperity provided by commerce. 

[AdamC]

 

Adam, I've quoted some of your material in an online discussion and referenced here.  Is this your original work?  Are there articles online you've written that I should reference instead?

 

Glad you're finding what I've written useful.

I have no published articles. My expressed arguments are my own, but I do want to indicate where I first encountered and then adopted certain terms and arguments:

A Landlord is Really a Type of Tax Collector by Mike O'Mara:

Distinguishing spatial "land" from physical "land": no person made the land (that is,
spatial locations, or the natural resources there)

Accepting that at ALL times, a fence is only a fence: "to claim land, mix your labor with it, such as by cultivating it, or fencing it." That principle might enable someone to own the top few inches of soil, and the fence itself. But how would it enable someone to own a mineral deposit twenty feet below the surface, or air space twenty feet above?

Using the term "location value" in place of "rent" when it's not certain others understand what rent means: If a person possesses more than an equal share of land value (based on location value, not the buildings there) that person is displacing others from land, and therefore owes them a displacement rent, equal to the difference between the total location value that person possesses and the per capita location value. Titles to land would then be compatible with liberty.

[PatrickC]

 

 

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". 

 

I'm not sure what that means Adam, in terms of any kind of theory (I have no theory).. I just mean that if a person develops a plot of land, which later encourages others to develop the land around his/hers to such a degree that the land becomes more valuable and popular with many more folk. Then one can say their personal investment of time and labour into that land improvement deserves some kind of recomepence in terms of value for their great foresight and improvement, if that makes sense.

 

[AdamC]

 

I just mean that if a person develops a plot of land, which later encourages others to develop the land around his/hers to such a degree that the land becomes more valuable and popular with many more folk. Then one can say their personal investment of time and labour into that land improvement deserves some kind of recomepence in terms of value for their great foresight and improvement, if that makes sense.

 

"...develops a plot of land..."

What definition of "land" are you using? (You'll notice I'm very careful to express what I mean by "land" because I'm aware of potential confusions.)

What exactly is it that he's developing and how? (Please describe in visual terms so I can clearly envisage what is happening in the physical world.)

 

[PatrickC]

What definition of "land" are you using? (You'll notice I'm very careful to express what I mean by "land" because I'm aware of potential confusions.)

What exactly is it that he's developing and how? (Please describe in visual terms so I can clearly envisage what is happening in the physical world.)

I should have said I have no formal theory, but that I do have a theory of sorts, which may or may not converge with those more formal ones.

The only way I can attempt to illustrate my point better, would be with an example of a lone fisherman looking for a spot to fish and raise his family. He discovers a natural harbour where he can build a safe dock for his boat to moor. He discovers that he nets a week’s haul of fish in one day. He decides to employ 3 other men from a local village to help him and he starts selling his catch to that village's fishmonger. The three men he employs decide to build houses next to his. One of them manages to save enough money to buy his own boat and decides to do the same. Another fella then decides that he can provide a road from the village to the docks and charge a reasonable sum to the fisherman that save them on broken wheels and get them to their destination more quickly.

So on and so forth, the land between these docks and village starts to develop as more and more people decide on the goods and services they can bring to this prosperous fishing hamlet. various plots of land being developed over time by individuals for the benefit of others until it flourishes into a massive metropolis.

So, my point being could it not be said that the lone fisherman who kick-started this created a space which became prosperous to others. That maybe in time he gets to develop his docks into a large roll on roll off ferry port. But maybe he decides he doesn't want to do that and allows someone else to develop the docks instead for a small annual fee and the promise that he can still moor his fishing boat there. To suggest that he has sat on land, 'rent seeking' as such I think would be a trifle unfair, given the amount of labour he put into it beforehand.

In terms of compensation, isn't the development of a large metropolis providing all manner of goods and services to people not compensation enough. If people want to be a part of that much later into its development, then it becomes subject to the market. If the price is high, then it's simply a reflection that people value that area highly.

I'm not sure if that helped you understand my position better. I'm just not convinced that people would do nothing with their land in the long run. That mostly if they do it will fall into rack and ruin and will disappear. Mostly all the modern day dereliction like Detroit and Manchester are normally always to do with state run industries or projects that leaves land empty and fallow with little or no prospect of ever entering a true 'free market'.

[Formelyknown]

A give B corns, B give A gold. Both are compensate for any land they used. A doesn't owe anythng else.

[NathanCJohnson]

xelent,

Your fisherman seems to have acted quite fairly but not to his maximum profit. Now what if he had instead homesteaded the entire lake. Then when his workers wanted to fish on their own. He could have charged them a monthly fee for using the lake, a monthly fee for building a dock there and if they wanted to be close to work, a  monthly fee for locating their  house nearby.  Now he is acting with the power of the landlord.  Now if their was a unclaimed lake nearby with as many fish he wouldn't be able to rent seek.  But if all the best lakes are monopolized, he and his descendants for generations to come can retire from fishing and live off the rent.

The Lockean Proviso is a feature of John Locke's labor theory of property which says that whilst individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature by working on it, they can do so only "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

 

 

[AdamC]

Also: FDR 0329 Property Rights On A Desert Island (MP3)

[AdamC]

I'm just not convinced that people would do nothing with their land in the long run.

What definition of "land" are you using? What do you mean by "their land"?

So, my point being could it not be said that the lone fisherman who kick-started this created a space which became prosperous to others.

I'm sure we can agree that he didn't create any space. He moved stuff around in space. He created property (a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house) by transforming physical "land".

Perhaps you're asking if he deserves (in the sense of being unquestionably entitled to) "recompense" for his human action? I say, no. The Labor Theory of Value is false. He doesn't own value, he owns his property which others may value in terms of the property they are willing to exchange. He can't demand others give him their property in exchange for his just because he believes his property has value. If he wants a monetary reward, he needs to make an exchange. Nothing has value prior to an exchange; value is discovered in trade.

Regarding the prosperity of the locations/exclusions... What do you mean by the word prosperity?

Do you mean the property resting at those locations/exclusions that he and others have created by transforming physical "land"? Do you mean the increased value of access to those locations/exclusions as measured by the property people would be willing trade in order to secure limited or exclusive access? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the potential property that could be transformed from the "natural opportunities" available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on their current and potential access to the labor (employers and employees) available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the opportunities to trade that are available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the social opportunities available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated?

What would the lone fisherman be claiming with respect to this prosperity? What would all the others working at those locations/exclusions be claiming with respect to this prosperity?

To suggest that he has sat on land, 'rent seeking' as such I think would be a trifle unfair, given the amount of labour he put into it beforehand.

The amount of his labor appears to be that which was necessary to produce a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house.

[PatrickC]

 

I'm just not convinced that people would do nothing with their land in the long run.

What definition of "land" are you using? What do you mean by "their land"?

So, my point being could it not be said that the lone fisherman who kick-started this created a space which became prosperous to others.

I'm sure we can agree that he didn't create any space. He moved stuff around in space. He created property (a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house) by transforming physical "land".

Perhaps you're asking if he deserves (in the sense of being unquestionably entitled to) "recompense" for his human action? I say, no. The Labor Theory of Value is false. He doesn't own value, he owns his property which others may value in terms of the property they are willing to exchange. He can't demand others give him their property in exchange for his just because he believes his property has value. If he wants a monetary reward, he needs to make an exchange. Nothing has value prior to an exchange; value is discovered in trade.

Regarding the prosperity of the locations/exclusions... What do you mean by the word prosperity?

Do you mean the property resting at those locations/exclusions that he and others have created by transforming physical "land"? Do you mean the increased value of access to those locations/exclusions as measured by the property people would be willing trade in order to secure limited or exclusive access? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the potential property that could be transformed from the "natural opportunities" available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on their current and potential access to the labor (employers and employees) available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the opportunities to trade that are available at those locations/exclusions? Do you mean the valuations people have placed on the social opportunities available at those locations/exclusions if limited or exclusive access could be negotiated?

What would the lone fisherman be claiming with respect to this prosperity? What would all the others working at those locations/exclusions be claiming with respect to this prosperity?

To suggest that he has sat on land, 'rent seeking' as such I think would be a trifle unfair, given the amount of labour he put into it beforehand.

The amount of his labor appears to be that which was necessary to produce a boat, a dock, some nets, many captured fish, and a house.

 

Ok, I'm thinking this is mostly a problem of definitions, because the way you have framed some of my points, I don't disagree with you entirely. This I think is the trouble with providing short examples, since they can be easily dismissed for lack of detail or as a 'one off'. Perhaps I've been a little 'meta' with my point and I think I agree that it could seem that I'm mixing up 'market value' with deserved recompense. The market will ultimately decide the value of anything of course, including land.

I'll be sure to take a look at the theories you have mentioned, because I freely admit that I tend to look at these topics from a philosophical approach, which means I can sometimes miss important details of course.

 

[PatrickC]

Nathan

The point is that he cannot own the whole lake, or in my example, the whole harbour. He has no way of stopping one of his own employees developing his own fishing business. This employee may have rented a portion of his previous employers dock or built his own in some other spot perhaps. But the harbour remains a resource to all those that can find a productive use for it. 

He cannot claim any kind fee for land he has not yet developed. If there is an untouched piece of land 20 yards from someone else's development, then he has to provide some reason for him making the claim. Of course in my fisherman example they would be working together and will have probably negotiated a mutually acceptable plot of land that suited both of them.

You seem to think that renting is a lay about job. Do you own property yourself? I ask this because I work with many landlords in my line of work. I can tell you that managing properties and buildings can be and is a full time job. If they stop providing their tenants with the services they provide, not only do they risk losing tenants, but they will certainly make less profit. I think you need to rethink your opinion of them and what they do.

Lastly the only way that a massive land or sea grab like the one you describe can be made, is through violence. This of course is not an acceptable way of becoming a landowner. But I appreciate that historically it has often been the case.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Nathan

The point is that he cannot own the whole lake, or in my example, the whole harbour. He has no way of stopping one of his own employees developing his own fishing business. This employee may have rented a portion of his previous employers dock or built his own in some other spot perhaps. But the harbour remains a resource to all those that can find a productive use for it. 

He cannot claim any kind fee for land he has not yet developed. If there is an untouched piece of land 20 yards from someone else's development, then he has to provide some reason for him making the claim. Of course in my fisherman example they would be working together and will have probably negotiated a mutually acceptable plot of land that suited both of them.

You seem to think that renting is a lay about job. Do you own property yourself? I ask this because I work with many landlords in my line of work. I can tell you that managing properties and buildings can be and is a full time job. If they stop providing their tenants with the services they provide, not only do they risk losing tenants, but they will certainly make less profit. I think you need to rethink your opinion of them and what they do.

Lastly the only way that a massive land or sea grab like the one you describe can be made, is through violence. This of course is not an acceptable way of becoming a landowner. But I appreciate that historically it has often been the case.

 

This is very interesting, I never thought of water as “land”. I’m not being sarcastic, it just occurred to me that water should just as “ownable” as land. Why can’t your fisherman homestead the entire lake? How would you define “massiveness” of the grab?

[Existing Alternatives]

While the act of homesteading may not be purely UPB, I don’t see a problem with the result of it. If you look at the system of ownership we have now, voluntary transfers of land happen all the time. Just because someone got to it before you does not mean you’ll forever be excluded from it.

[PatrickC]

This is very interesting, I never thought of water as “land”. I’m not being sarcastic, it just occurred to me that water should just as “ownable” as land. Why can’t your fisherman homestead the entire lake? How would you define “massiveness” of the grab?

I guess historically it had to do with paths of passage for ships and boats. But primarily you cannot own expanses of water largely because you are unable to manipulate water in quite the same way as you can soil. That being said, if you could adapt some kind of seastead then I guess you can. Notwithstanding the ability to reclaim land from the sea. In terms of a harbour then you would need to show that you are utilising it to it's fullest extent. I imagine many harbours were once owned by a consortium of owners as they developed the harbour with new and expanded uses.

 

[NathanCJohnson]

Does any one have thoughts about my discussion with Stefan on this topic? We start talking about the issue 8:50 minutes in

[Phuein]

I read the entirety of this thread and listened to the linked podcasts.   

 

This sort of principled conflict is exactly why I started the debate in my Responsiblity Versus Ownership thread.

 

Making claims for ownership does not solve any conflict. The idea that a claim for ownership can be objectively or culturally justified, does not stand the test of our reality. It is always a conflict among us, just as children fight over ownership.

 

The purpose of philosophical discussion is to solve conflict; internal or external. Expecting people to give up on their necessities (food, water, shelter), because we have rights of ownership, is neither logical nor an effective solution to this issue. This is the case, because people insist on ownership, but disregard responsibility!

 

I am not a statist nor a communist, but neither am I a capitalist. I am a pure anarchist, in the sense that I am in the conclusion that not everything can be marked, ruled, measured and justified; nor should everything be so clearly and philosophically defined. I am a "practicalitist," mostly.

 

We cannot live without food. We cannot have food without access to land, which produces our food. Without direct access to land, we are relying on another person, with access to the land, to sell or give us food. In other words, we are dependent on the whim and success of another person, for our livelihood. This is always true for children. This should not be the case for adults! Adults have always had the ability to try and sustain themselves. Once practical access to land is barred, then that isn't the case any longer, sadly.

 

I strongly agree that land should not be viewed as a commodity, but not because it is the geological whore of everyone, to be owned and passed around and paid bribes for. The land cannot be a commodity, because without practical access to land, a person cannot exist!

 

It seems to me that we will never understand our ownership rights well enough to stop these life-stealing disputes. I suspect that an actual resolution will only come from understanding our personal responsibilities. I give plenty of relevant examples in my thread, about the difference between responsibility and ownership, and the importance of the former over the latter.

 

Lots of good reading links, by the way! It's lots of fun to go through them. Thanks.