A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

[Usethem]

I don't claim to have the perfect solution to the problem, all that I am saying is the system that we have now whereby an individual or organization can own unlimited amounts of land whether they're using it productively or not, thus denying other individuals any land at all is inherently unjust.Libertarians claim the right to life is sacred, but without some access to land/air/water, etc... the right to life does not exist. Don't believe me? catapult yourself into outer space where there's no air/water/land & see how long you can survive.I'm also trying to point out the fact that private property in the fruits of ones labor is inherently different than private property in something that is a gift from nature. Private property in gifts of nature is NOT based on the principle of self-ownership.Once again, I don't have all the answers. There are some ideas in the links I provided. Some I agree with more than others. Basically I just want to get people to start thinking differently and realising that land & natural resources are a different type of "property" than are the fruits of human labor, and that maybe, just maybe, we ought to look at them in a different way.

I agree with your points, although I also think that it is a potentially solvable dilemma, given time and the right minds applied. However just to be Devil's Advocate (to to hear your opinion) I just want to take your idea of natural resources and wonder where you draw the line? What is considered natural? Is the idea of a natural resources only considered to be non-sentient/organic etc. objects, e.g. air or water? I think that the phrase "made by nature" and "made in nature" are interchangeable. And so we could say then that human beings, being made in nature, are also capable of being owned....of course I'm assuming there would be protections against a regression to slavery in this anarcho-captialist society. I dunno, just some thoughts

[BorisM]

 And so we could say then that human beings, being made in nature, are also capable of being owned....of course I'm assuming there would be protections against a regression to slavery in this anarcho-captialist society. I dunno, just some thoughts

Actually, human beings being a product of nature can NOT be owned, is more consistent with what I'm saying. Which begs several other moral questions, regarding what "is" or "isn't" property. If one could build a robot capable of the same level of conscience thought as a human, would that robot be property, or would it be a self-owner? If humans are created by "god", does "god" own us? Can we rightfully own animals, or are animals self-owners? What about animals bred, or genetically modified by humans?

 

Way off topic, I know. Mabye time for another thread.

[Usethem]

Actually, human beings being a product of nature can NOT be owned, is more consistent with what I'm saying. Which begs several other moral questions, regarding what "is" or "isn't" property. If one could build a robot capable of the same level of conscience thought as a human, would that robot be property, or would it be a self-owner? If humans are created by "god", does "god" own us? Can we rightfully own animals, or are animals self-owners? What about animals bred, or genetically modified by humans?

 

Way off topic, I know. Mabye time for another thread.

I guess I should've explained it a littler better. What I meant was to set up the criteria of ownership as based on whether or not an object is natural might require a precise definition of natural. When does something become 'unnatural?' If human beings are made by nature and if robots are made by human beings then robots would be made by nature too, wouldn't they? And if everything that is natural cannot be owned than we can't really own anything. Or we have to own everything. Obviously this sort my overextension of this metaphor is more than a little absurd, I just had to appease my neurosis and at least explain myself.

[BorisM]

True, everything comes from nature, if you trace it back far enough. When something becomes transformed into something new by human action, is when I believe it can be claimed it as property, if property is based on self-ownership. Prior to that action, anyone has as much right to it as anyone else.

[JSDev]

True, everything comes from nature, if you trace it back far enough. When something becomes transformed into something new by human action, is when I believe it can be claimed it as property, if property is based on self-ownership. Prior to that action, anyone has as much right to it as anyone else.

That everyone has equal claim to previously unowned natural resources is just restating the problem I already presented. What do you do about disputes? Can philosophy and reason help us here? The problem highlights the fact that the concept of ownership over property is not self evident or rational, rather it's dependent on it being part of a social pact. I only own something in so much as you agree that I do. Nothing more. If you disagree and want to claim what I thought was my property as your own then the only way I can prove to you that I own it is to appeal to a higher authority, a third party. But we have to agree in the legitimacy of that authority in the first place. Or we have to fight over it. All of this is not a satisfactory answer in terms of philosophy.

[BorisM]

That everyone has equal claim to previously unowned natural resources is just restating the problem I already presented. What do you do about disputes? Can philosophy and reason help us here? The problem highlights the fact that the concept of ownership over property is not self evident or rational, rather it's dependent on it being part of a social pact. I only own something in so much as you agree that I do. Nothing more. If you disagree and want to claim what I thought was my property as your own then the only way I can prove to you that I own it is to appeal to a higher authority, a third party. But we have to agree in the legitimacy of that authority in the first place. Or we have to fight over it. All of this is not a satisfactory answer in terms of philosophy.

I think property based on self-ownership is justifiable. I think it's rational to believe that if you create something with your labor, you have a right to it. I'll agree with your previous post that historically land and resouces were mainly aquired through conquest, and are not "owned" rightfully. How we deal with the injustices of the past will certainly be a complicated issue, should the state be abolished.

 

How disputes regarding access to un-owned resources are handled in a free society, is really anyones guess. I just believe that all have a universal/equal right to access these resources. So long as the solution's voluntary and non-agressive, I don't have a problem with it.

[JSDev]

I think property based on self-ownership is justifiable. I think it's rational to believe that if you create something with your labor, you have a right to it. I'll agree with your previous post that historically land and resouces were mainly aquired through conquest, and are not "owned" rightfully. How we deal with the injustices of the past will certainly be a complicated issue, should the state be abolished.How disputes regarding access to un-owned resources are handled in a free society, is really anyones guess. I just believe that all have a universal/equal right to access these resources. So long as the solution's voluntary and non-agressive, I don't have a problem with it.

I'm not being clear enough. This isn't a "how will X be handled in a free society" kind of question. I'm trying to understand the philosophical basis for ownership. You say that property based on self ownership is justifiable, but what philosophical principle makes that true?

[JSDev]

I found something insightful

http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/ownership-and-its-paradoxes/

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

It has to do with property rights. a not so obvious mis-understanding of property rights. Three of the basic principles of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosiphy, as I understand it are: "self-ownership" & "The non-agression principle" and "equality of rights". The concept of private property is based upon the notion that if one owns oneself, then it reasons that he has a right to own that which he produces, or that which would not have existed had he not created it(i.e. the fruits of his labor). This is the basic moral justification for property rights based on self-ownership. The non-agression principle says that no one may use agression to forcibly deprive anyone of their rightful property(among other rights as well). On these principles, I am in full agreement. However, how do these principles apply to forms of "property"(for lack of a better term), that are not a product of human labor? for example: the air we breath, unimproved land, undiscovered natural resources, bandwidth, etc... This is a complicated question, because if one cannot "own" or at least "exclusively control" these valuable resources which are a necessary factor in the production of wealth & capital, then obviously no wealth, or capital can be produced. For one to be able to "create" legitimate private property one must be able to access these resources.(for example: put the most ambitious, hard-working man in an empty room for several hours, come back and ask him what he was able to produce and the answer will be nothing. It is physically impossibe to create something from nothing. Labor itself can produce nothing tangible without resources to work with.)

 

The question is "who" is entitled to these necessary resources, and "how much" are they entitled to, being that no human being created them(i.e. they are not the fruits of anyones labor)? The typical libertarian/anarcho-capitalist response for the justification of private property in previously un-owned land & natural resources is the homesteading principle, or the Lockean principle that when one mixes his labor with the land or natural resources he creates something previously non-existent that is rightfully his private property. After this homesteading has ocurred, this rightful property may be voluntarily bought, sold, or traded, indefinately. While this sounds reasonable on the surface, I intend to prove that this principle is inherently flawed and inconsistent with self-ownership & equality of rights.

 

The biggest problem with the homesteading principle is that valuable land and natural resources are fixed in supply(at least those accessible here on planet earth) and once all the land and natural resources have been homesteaded, homesteading no longer becomes an option. All of a sudden we have property rights based on "first come, first-served", rather than on the principle of self-ownership and equality of rights. If we are all truly created equal, and have equal unailienable rights, do we not all have a common and equal right to access natural property without which legitimate man-made property can not exist? Can private property in "the fruits of one's labor" exist if the right to create such property does not exist? Can the right to private property even exist at all, if there is no inherent right to create private property? If "first come, first served" trumps equal rights then only those who got here first have property rights, and those that did not "get in on the ground floor" have no rights at all. To deny any person the right to some land, oxygen, water, etc... is to deny said person's right to even exist at all! Is a right to life at all possible without an inherent right to live off the land, to breathe the air, to drink water, to produce and consume food? Without some access to the earth, one may only exist by permission of those that do own the earth. The moral question being: Is the right to access the land & natural resources that are necessary for life an equal right applicable to all human beings, or is it a conditional priviledge based on first-come first served?

 

One may argue that there is still some land available for homesteading somewhere(though I'm not sure that this is true), but is it fair that someone be required to leave the land he was born on and travel many miles, in order to search for inhabitable land somewhere else? Isn't it very likely that any un-owned land is of inferior quality to that which has already been homesteaded? Does not the person who has first access to a plot of land containing valuable minerals, or crude oil have an obvious advantage over one who's only option is to homestead a plot of near worthless land in the desert? Does mixing one's labor with the land for a short period of time give one a perpetual monopoly over that piece of land forever?

 

There are many books and articles adressing this issue, and I have linked to many of them below. Unfortunately, most come from a minarchist perspective allowing for a certain amount of government to enforce a solution. I believe there are better ways to correct this injustice without using the coercive force of "government", however this issue does need to be addressed, for without a proper understanding of our equal right to access the natural world, we allow for a new state to come into existence in the form of the land monopolist. A "government" by any other name is still a "government"(a government being defined as an entity presumed the right to initiate force over a certain geographical area). Read: "a landlord is a government" linked below.

 

What it all really boils down to is this: Which is a higher moral principle "equality of rights", or "first come first-served"? Is a person not justified in using defensive force against anyone attempting to aggressively infringe upon his right of access to land, air, water, & other natural resources?

If you are going to talk about private property, it's important to start with the foundations of property theory.  I wrote a paper on a subject very similar to this already with respect to Lockean philosophy.  Here is the answer that you seek.

 

Suppose radios were invented in a Lockean state of nature.  Would a Lockean theory of natural property be able to make sense of private property rights in parts of the broadcast spectrum?  Try working out such a theory in Lockean terms, and evaluate it against what you take to be the relevant interests to be served by allocating rights to broadcast over various distances on different frequencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question of whether a Lockean theory of natural property would be capable of accounting for specific broadcast spectrums of radio waves is an interesting one; one I believe is founded in an idea of whether extremely scarce resources can be appropriated as individual property. In this paper, I will examine Locke's theory of appropriating property that is held in common by all people and try to uncover how Locke would have addressed the issue of scarcity. Both Hobbes and Locke begin their arguments from the initial “state of nature”. Hobbes depicts this state of nature as harsh; a struggle of man against man. Locke took an entirely different approach. His view of the state of nature was one of abundance where the goal of property rights was not to deprive others of resources, but to ensure that every person retained the opportunity to obtain the resources required to flourish. A resource of extreme scarcity is one that Locke may never have considered.

Locke's attempt to construct a tenable position of property rights began with the concept of self-ownership. Locke states, “yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.” (Locke, chapter 5, section 27)¹ Locke then continues to establish the appropriation of individual property by means of mixing one's labor with what is held in common for every person, by doing so appropriates that resource to her individually. If we are to apply this construction of property rights to a resource of extreme scarcity, such as a part of the broadcast spectrum, we would simply state that when a person uses a radio transmitter over a specific radio frequency, she is mixing her labor with that frequency and thus that particular frequency is her personal property. Unfortunately, this is an incomplete characterization of Lockean property theory. The Lockean proviso seemingly makes private ownership of extremely scarce resources impossible.

“Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same. (Locke, chapter 5, section 33)¹”

Here you can see the tension that this specific example, private ownership of broadcast frequencies, creates. If one individual uses a specific broadcast spectrum, i.e. justly appropriates a frequency of radio waves to herself by mixing her labor with it, then nobody else can attempt to use that specific frequency within its range without creating interference and turning that frequency to waste.

Let's assume that several independent individuals appropriated each frequency range to themselves within a given region, by mixing their labor with their respective broadcast frequency, to the point that every frequency was in use. This would be in violation of Locke's proviso yet at the same time completely within the appropriation scheme outlined above. This seems to be a huge oversight by John Locke. In actuality, it's not. The Lockean proviso is more an exception to the rule than a rule in itself. If I take an abundant resource as my own, by mixing my labor with it, then no other person has any reason to object to this appropriation of it. There is still plenty for everyone else (Locke, chapter 5, section 33). On the other hand, if I mix my labor with a scarce resource and claim it as my own, I am harming other people by significantly limiting their opportunity to acquire similar resources. Because of this, and according to the Lockean proviso, acquisition of scarce resources as private property is illegitimate. To clarify, acquisition of specific frequencies of the broadcast spectrum is completely legitimate according to the Lockean theory of property acquisition so long as there is an abundance of other radio frequencies available for use in any given region. In the event that broadcast frequencies become scarce enough where the acquisition of a frequency harms the opportunity of others to transmit radio waves, appropriating frequencies in this way becomes illegitimate.

This still could be seen as an incomplete characterization of Lockean property theory. There is another aspect of Locke's theory that hasn't been introduced yet. Locke said, “God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated (Locke, chapter 5, section 34).” If owning specific broadcast frequencies is illegitimate, does this mean no one can justifiably transmit radio waves? If this were the case, wouldn't that result in more waste than if appropriation of such a resource were acquired on a first-come-first-serve basis? I think that point has a lot of merit to it. Based on what Locke said in section 34, I can't imagine him disagreeing with the fact that everybody is better off if, at the very least, some people are permitted the exclusive use of radio waves to broadcast information and entertainment to anyone who has a receiver. Because of this, property rights must not create a system where everybody is worse-off. Although under the Lockean theory of property, the ownership of radio frequencies is still held in common by every person, permitting the exclusive use of such frequencies to individuals is highly advantageous for everyone. I believe, if Locke were presented with this problem, he would solve it by keeping broadcast frequencies in common ownership but also collectively allow the exclusive use of specific frequencies to those who want or need them the most in any given region, at any given time.

The incomplete characterization I referenced above was the absence of money and governments. Locke said, “It is true, in land that is common in England, or any other country, where there is plenty of people under government, who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners: Because this is left common by compact, i.e. by the law of the land, which is not to be violated (Locke, chapter 5, section 35).” I believe this is easily applicable to the common ownership of radio frequencies within the region of a country, such as the United States of America. Although I have provided reasons why radio frequencies are left in common, not by compact but instead by a violation of the Lockean proviso, our society still has a mutually beneficial interest in providing individuals with the exclusive use of such frequencies and thus can appropriate it to individuals by compact. This exclusive use of property held in common by everyone should go to the individuals who want and need it the most, i.e. are willing to relinquish the most of their private property to their fellow-commoners, for this exclusive use. After doing some independent research on this idea, I found others like me had already developed the idea, called geolibertarianism, which is a culmination of Georgism and libertarianism. Because radio frequencies are held in common, rent needs to be paid, not simply for the use of specific frequencies, but for the right to exclude others from using it. The beauty of geolibertarianism is that it is based on all of the above premises that Locke used to establish his theory of property rights, but simply clarifies what I believe is implicit in Locke's theory. There are several mechanisms for collecting this rent. The most obvious is the institution of government but anarchic philosophers have also devised private, voluntary associations that could collect and distribute rents in a similar fashion.

Locke's philosophy of appropriating resources from common ownership to private ownership is reasonable and justifiable for resources that are relatively abundant. It provides us with a system of ownership where we can justly benefit from our labor and provides incentive for production. Admittedly, Locke's theory can be seen as problematic when considering resources that are relatively scarce. The appropriation of private property over scarce resources inherently implies the exclusion of others from the opportunity of acquisition. Because of this, Locke introduced what Nozick called, “the Lockian proviso” which I believe is nothing more than a clarification of Locke's work. In it, Locke accounted for the over-acquisition of resources, i.e. the appropriation of what is held in common by everyone to an individual that is more than what that individual is capable of using. Any acquisition of resources that fails to leave enough in common for everyone is illegitimate. It follows from this that scarce resources cannot be appropriated to private ownership because it reduces the ability for others to appropriate similar resources. The great benefit of money and government provides the solution. We can maintain collective ownership of scarce resources while still reaping the mutually beneficial rewards of awarding individuals the exclusive use of those resources. We can do this by introducing the concept of geolibertariansim, which I believe Locke's work entails when the logic of his arguments are applied to scarcity.

1John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

[BorisM]

 

We can maintain collective ownership of scarce resources while still reaping the mutually beneficial rewards of awarding individuals the exclusive use of those resources. We can do this by introducing the concept of geolibertariansim, which I believe Locke's work entails when the logic of his arguments are applied to scarcity.

1John Locke, Two Treatises of Government

 

 

You had me up until this point(lol)!, however it may be just a misuse of the word "collective". I think "collective" ownership of resources is quite different than a "common" right to the use of something.

http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

 

I would agree that broadcast spectrum is a natural resource that should be treated just as land, or any other natural resource. It requires exclusive use to use it efficiently, however those being "excluded" should be compensated.

 

I'm not being clear enough. This isn't a "how will X be handled in a free society" kind of question. I'm trying to understand the philosophical

 You say that property based on self ownership is justifiable, but what philosophical principle makes that true?

I think "self-ownership" is the principle. If you own yourself, you own your actions. If your actions produce something, you own what those actions produce.

[cab21]

how much compensation are people to get from anything a person is "excluded " from ? why would a person want to be "included" in anything, if the amount of compensation from "exclusion" makes it better to just sit and collect compensation without work?

[BorisM]

how much compensation are people to get from anything a person is "excluded " from ?

 

How much is the exclusion worth? It's worth whatever the excluder is willing to pay. In a free society the market would determine the price of "exclusion", just as it does for anything else of value.

 

Consider broadcast spectrum. If several companies, or individuals are interested in broadcasting on the same frequency, how would you suggest they sort it out? Would the one with the most powerful transmitter be entitled to drown the others out? If one of the competitors later came up with an even more powerful transmitter, would he then be entitled to drown out the first guy, with competitors continually trying to overpower each other? Seems to me that the one who valued the frequency most compensating the others for the right to exclude them, is a more efficient & peaceful solution.

 why would a person want to be "included" in anything, if the amount of compensation from "exclusion" makes it better to just sit and collect compensation without work?

Why would a person not want to be "included" in the use of something of value? If no one wanted to use a given resource there would be no value to it, thus the compensation for exclusion would be zero.

[cab21]

How much is the exclusion worth? It's worth whatever the excluder is willing to pay. In a free society the market would determine the price of "exclusion", just as it does for anything else of value.

 

Consider broadcast spectrum. If several companies, or individuals are interested in broadcasting on the same frequency, how would you suggest they sort it out? Would the one with the most powerful transmitter be entitled to drown the others out? If one of the competitors later came up with an even more powerful transmitter, would he then be entitled to drown out the first guy, with competitors continually trying to overpower each other? Seems to me that the one who valued the frequency most compensating the others for the right to exclude them, is a more efficient & peaceful solution.

There is a difference between buying out previous owners, and buying out anyone that "wants" to own.

 

Paying 1 million to a previous owner, vs. paying 1 million to 6 billion people that “want” to own, or even splitting the 1 million payment to all 6 billion people that “want” to be owners.

 

if a new company wants to buy out a frequency that is being used, the company would by from the company currently using the frequency. people would be excluded if they were not able to buy from the current user, but not being able to buy is not some claim to be compensated for not being able to make a deal with a owner.

 

if a frequency is not being used, the first to use it owns it

if a frequency is being used, that person owns it until it is sold to a new owner, and that new owner then owns the frequency

 

Why would a person not want to be "included" in the use of something of value? If no one wanted to use a given resource there would be no value to it, thus the compensation for exclusion would be zero.

 

 

I'm saying is people would make claims of wanting to be "included", but not want to, or work to be actually included. Being "included" means getting the financing to buy and pay for anything that is being used, if someone can just claim "ill pay 5 million dollars", when they know the winning bid is "5.5 million", the person never worked on the ability to actually pay, and only had to claim the desire to pay. If that person gets paid the same amount as the person that actually earned 5.3 million dollars, the person had to work a lot harder to actually make 5.3 million dollars than to simply claim a desire to pay 5 million dollars.

 

Markets need to  based on the ability to buy, not the “want” to buy, or there is more incentive to "want" than have the "ability". it takes less effort to "want" something that to have the "ability" to get something.

[BorisM]

There is a difference between buying out previous owners, and buying out anyone that "wants" to own.

 

Paying 1 million to a previous owner, vs. paying 1 million to 6 billion people that “want” to own, or even splitting the 1 million payment to all 6 billion people that “want” to be owners.

Exactly. Who is being excluded? The previous owner, or everyone that might want to use a given resource. If "everyone" is being excluded, shouldn't "everyone" be compensated?

 

if a new company wants to buy out a frequency that is being used, the company would by from the company currently using the frequency. people would be excluded if they were not able to buy from the current user, but not being able to buy is not some claim to be compensated for not being able to make a deal with a owner.

 

if a frequency is not being used, the first to use it owns it

if a frequency is being used, that person owns it until it is sold to a new owner, and that new owner then owns the frequency

It sounds as if you believe "first come, first-served" trumps "equality of rights" as a moral principle. You're entitled to that opinion, but if you think that philosiphy will result in a society "without rulers", I think your greatly mistaken.

[cab21]

Exactly. Who is being excluded? The previous owner, or everyone that might want to use a given resource. If "everyone" is being excluded, shouldn't "everyone" be compensated?

 

 

what is a reasonable pay  and accounting system to compensate everyone as suppose to a previous  owner?

making 1 payment seems simpler than 6 billion payments and all the accounting involved.

 

It sounds as if you believe "first come, first-served" trumps "equality of rights" as a moral principle. You're entitled to that opinion, but if you think that philosiphy will result in a society "without rulers", I think your greatly mistaken.

 

first to create, first served

this is equal rights, there is no discrimination in who can be first.

everyone has the equal right to be first to create.

[BorisM]

what is a reasonable pay  and accounting system to compensate everyone as suppose to a previous  owner?

making 1 payment seems simpler than 6 billion payments and all the accounting involved.

 

.

Reasonable is what the market determines it's worth. Collect the rental value of the land, or the highest bid for other un-owned resources & divide it up amongst society. This is just one idea, of course. there may be better ones.

first to create, first served

this is equal rights, there is no discrimination in who can be first.

everyone has the equal right to be first to create.

No descrimination? What about those not yet born? How does someone born later in time have less rights than his anscestors?

[cab21]

No descrimination? What about those not yet born? How does someone born later in time have less rights than his anscestors?

 

those not born have the same legal  right to be the first to create as those that are born.

[BorisM]

those not born have the same legal  right to be the first to create as those that are born.

"Right to be the first to create"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought we were discussing access to land & natural resources. You can't be first to create someting with a resource that someone else has already used. You can't be the first to "create" a log cabin from a grove of trees that someone else has already cut down and built a cabin with before you were born.

[cab21]

"Right to be the first to create"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought we were discussing access to land & natural resources. You can't be first to create someting with a resource that someone else has already used. You can't be the first to "create" a log cabin from a grove of trees that someone else has already cut down and built a cabin with before you were born.

 

if one spot is used, people have the right to go to a different spot and use that different spot.

[BorisM]

if one spot is used, people have the right to go to a different spot and use that different spot.

I agree, but what if there are no "different spots" left? I realize there is plenty of unused land in the world today, however there is very little(if any) un-owned land today, at least in the legal sense. This is obviously a "statist" problem.

 

Suppose, however in a state-less society A small percentage of the population bought up all, or a great majority of the land, so that there were no un-owned spots for newcomers. Would those newcomers not have less rights that their ancestors had when there was plenty of free land left to homestead?

[cab21]

they have the same right, no matter what land is available.

 

sort of like a person still has the right to consenting sex, even if noone consents to have sex with the person, and thus the person does not have consenting sex.

 

there is less land, not less of a right.

there is not consenting sex, but still the same  right to have consenting sex.

 

the right  does not depend on the supply to where there is no right if there is no supply or there is a right if there is a supply

[RestoringGuy]

I agree, but what if there are no "different spots" left? I realize there is plenty of unused land in the world today, however there is very little(if any) un-owned land today, at least in the legal sense. This is obviously a "statist" problem.

 

Suppose, however in a state-less society A small percentage of the population bought up all, or a great majority of the land, so that there were no un-owned spots for newcomers. Would those newcomers not have less rights that their ancestors had when there was plenty of free land left to homestead?

It's a problem in state-less society too.  As an anarchist, I am appalled at the blind acceptance of estates and wills being binding on all non-agreeing parties.  In anarchist society, if you go by any of these principles (self-ownership, etc.), nothing should exist after death.  Estates and wills can only be agreements between the remaining non-dead people, if they are legitimate contracts.  But most people did not agree, so they are technically free to claim whatever land and stuff belongs to the dead.

 

It would seem to me, if one recognizes the state control as wrongful way for people to think, then the state-less executors of wills and estates are similarly equipped with erroneous thinking unless absolutely everybody has signed up, some even signing before their birth.  Property, no matter its origin, would otherwise have to return to being in a state of nature, free for anybody to claim or "homestead".  The "different spots" appear because people die.

[BorisM]

they have the same right, no matter what land is available.

 

sort of like a person still has the right to consenting sex, even if noone consents to have sex with the person, and thus the person does not have consenting sex.

 

If no consenting sexual partners exist, tough luck. If there's no land in existance that would be tough luck, as well. Land does exist. It is the the action of someone else that is preventing access. If consentual sexual partners exist & someone else is using force to prevent you from hooking up, that's violating your right.

[cab21]

If no consenting sexual partners exist, tough luck. If there's no land in existance that would be tough luck, as well. Land does exist. It is the the action of someone else that is preventing access.

 

 

but you said in your example that no unclaimed land existed in the scenario.

 

Suppose, however in a state-less society A small percentage of the population bought up all, or a great majority of the land,

 

if all the land was taken, there would be no more land to take.

if some of the land was taken, then there would be some land to take.

 

If consentual sexual partners exist & someone else is using force to prevent you from hooking up, that's violating your right.

 

using force to prevent someone from finding a consenting sexual partner is a violion

the fact of no more land to claim, because all land is claimed, is not equivalent and not a violation. noone is preventing someone from claiming unclaimed land.

 

land has to be separate into two categories

just like consenting partners, and nonconsenting nonpartners

with land , it would be unclaimed land, and claimed land.

if all land is claimed land, then there would not be unclaimed land, just as if all others are nonconsenting nonpartners, there would not be any consenting partners.

 

both situations fit the tough luck test, without violating anyone's rights or making rights unequal.

[BorisM]

but you said in your example that no unclaimed land existed in the scenario.

 

if all the land was taken, there would be no more land to take.

if some of the land was taken, then there would be some land to take.

 

using force to prevent someone from finding a consenting sexual partner is a violion

the fact of no more land to claim, because all land is claimed, is not equivalent and not a violation. noone is preventing someone from claiming unclaimed land.

 

land has to be separate into two categories

just like consenting partners, and nonconsenting nonpartners

with land , it would be unclaimed land, and claimed land.

if all land is claimed land, then there would not be unclaimed land, just as if all others are nonconsenting nonpartners, there would not be any consenting partners.

 

both situations fit the tough luck test, without violating anyone's rights or making rights unequal.

I think the question is whether the claim is legitimate. Can someone claim more land than he is able to use? How does he justify that claim? Seems like we're really just talking in circles at this point. I don't mean to be rude, but unless you have a completely new angle that we haven't discussed at length, maybe it's time we just agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Thanx for contributing to the conversation.

[PatrickC]

Boris, for shame (J/K).. why are you continuing with this thread?. From land lubbers to lubbers of flesh, where are you going with this fella? Enuf I say..

[cab21]

I think the question is whether the claim is legitimate. Can someone claim more land than he is able to use? How does he justify that claim? Seems like we're really just talking in circles at this point. I don't mean to be rude, but unless you have a completely new angle that we haven't discussed at length, maybe it's time we just agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Thanx for contributing to the conversation.

 

 

 a person does not get to claim more land than that person is able to use. The land is claimed through use, not the ability to use.

just looking at a apartment example, a landowner is using land by renting out the use of apartment to clients. the landowner will be in charge of building the buildings and some maintenance and management of the buildings, and the client will be in charge of what is in the contract.

that would be separate from someone claiming some geographic space and never doing anything to use or maintain that space.

if a landowner thought he was no longer able to  or interested in using the apartments, the apartments could be sold to a new landowner . part of the agreement with the clients can be a rent to buy, or the rent clients can become investors and gain equity that way, or the building can be sold to the rent clients as much as it could be sold to a new buyer according to the contract.