A fatal flaw in libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.

[NoTreason]

Before land is homesteaded we all have an equal right to use it. But out of no where one guy just randomly shows up and declares it is his own and uses force to keep every one else off of it. He starts claiming he and only he has the right to exclusively control and use that land, and if we don't give up our right to it, that it's use that is initiating the force against him!!! But, we all just moments before had an equal right to it right? when did we all give up our right to walk on that land to this one guy, and why should it be acceptable for him to initiate the threat or use of force against all of us to maintain his arbitrary borders?

[Mike Fleming]

Before land is homesteaded we all have an equal right to use it. But out of no where one guy just randomly shows up and declares it is his own and uses force to keep every one else off of it. He starts claiming he and only he has the right to exclusively control and use that land, and if we don't give up our right to it, that it's use that is initiating the force against him!!! But, we all just moments before had an equal right to it right? when did we all give up our right to walk on that land to this one guy, and why should it be acceptable for him to initiate the threat or use of force against all of us to maintain his arbitrary borders?

 

Let him say that.  He can rant and rave for awhile, but after a day or two he'll probably get bored with the idea and decide he needs some food and water.  And would also like to buy things from people in the community.   He will probably be a bit more willing to follow generally accepted practices at that point.  Either that or the community will just get fed up with his behaviour and put him in a strait jacket.

[norpan]

i'm sorry is the land up for bid? If someone owns the land they can hirer the person who makes it most productive.

Well yes, but to make investments that makes the land profitable you must own it, or in some way be able to control the future use of the land. This is not possible when you only rent it, so the owner can not get as much rent as he could by selling the land outright. 

This is also why people take better care of things they own than of things they rent: they can get value from them in the future because they own them.

[NathanCJohnson]

Well yes, but to make investments that makes the land profitable you must own it,

I'm sorry what investments did the owner of this vacant lot make to make this land worth $15 million?  He did nothing but use state privilege to block others from using it.  Meanwhile the community brought it value by building restaurants, subways, roads, stores and businesses. 

 

"Night life on the block is very vibrant, you have the hotel on rivington across the street. Fine retail and restaurant establishments on both rivington and ludlow streets. With a c4-4a zoning a developer can have stores on the ground floor and apartments above. The property is right in the vicinity of all modes of transportation. The v and f trains are on delancey and essex street, the b15 is on allen street, which goes uptown. It's also in the vicinity of the sunshine theatre and the essex street market. "

 

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Rivington-St_New-York_NY_10002_M45248-62819?row=1&source=web

[aeonicentity]

The right to life is different that the ability to live. We don't take cancer to the Hague for war crimes because it violates people's 'right to life'. Just because you have a right to life, doesn't mean you have the ability to live. A man drowning in an ocean certainly has the right, but not the ability. People starving because of drought or famine have the right to life, but not the ability.

 

This issue is at the heart of forced morality. We all recognize that it is unfortunate that people have the right to live, but not the ability, and so we want to force people to help them. To this end we mistake the right to live with the ability to live, and tell people it isn't just a moral responsibility, but a societal obligation to help the poor and the unfortunate. What people don't understand is that this forced morality is more imoral than the lack of help from free men and women.

 

While it is a moral responsibility of man to help those who are less than able to protect themselves, or survive, that doesn't make it a violation of 'rights' when they don't. Rather a failing on the part of all parties to live a just and moral society.

 

What I feel is lacking from your understanding of the issue Boris, is an understanding of the idea of rights, and abilities. to restate, everyone has property rights (even if they don't own property). They have these rights because they are an inseperable part of the human condition and psyche. Rights include things like life, property rights, right to labor, etc. They have these things because they are fundamental to living a full and successfull life.

 

However, just because you have a right to a full and sucessfull life, doesn't mean you have the ability to have one. For example: Your mom makes a wonderful pie. She offers the pie to everyone in the family. However, you can't eat pecan pie without an alergic reaction. Did your mother violate your right to this freely offered pie by baking it with pecans? no! Hell, you could eat the Pecan pie too, but you'd suffer the consiquences of it. You choose to not have the pie (to which you have a right) because you lack the ability to eat said pie. Less fortunate examples would include people who have rights to work for a living, but refuse certain jobs because they either lack the ability, or lack the desire to perform them.They're not being denied their right to work, they're choosing not to work under given circumstances- And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Rights exist independent of your ability to act on them. So while you have the right to life, you may choose not to act on it and sacrifice your life for some cause. That doesn't invalidate your right to life. While you have the right to life, if you're born into a world without sufficent resources to support you, you can't claim injustice because you lack the ability to live. If this were the case we're all war-criminals for aiding and abeding our parents who knowingly brought life into such a world!

[NathanCJohnson]

, if you're born into a world without sufficent resources to support you, you can't claim injustice because you lack the ability to live.

What a crock.  This world is not lacking in sufficient resources. That was the error of Malthus.  This world has an overwhelming abundance of resources, but some have coordinated if off from other, with the justification that their ancestors got their first (not counting the indigenous people and with reliance on state privilege, of course).

[NathanCJohnson]

The term "real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility, and the root of noble privilege.When the state granted land titles to a fraction of the population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others. Those without land privileges must either buy or rent those privileges from the people who received the grants or from their assignees. Thus the state titles enable large landowners to collect a transfer payment, or "free lunch" from the actual land users.
 

A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation.

--Thomas Jefferson

[aeonicentity]

What a crock.  This world is not lacking in sufficient resources. That was the error of Malthus.  This world has an overwhelming abundance of resources, but some have coordinated if off from other, with the justification that their ancestors got their first (not counting the indigenous people and with reliance on state privilege, of course).

The world may indeed have sufficent resources, but all people face the issue of a society with limited resources. Even in America, we face limited resources.

[BorisM]

Wow! What an overwelming response to this post! Thanks to all who have expressed opinions. I've certainly been exposed to some ideas that I hadn't thought about before. Some very valid points made on the topic by nearly everyone.

 

I'm really surprised to find more agreement than I expected. Certainly most of us can agree that the current statist position towards land ownership is inconsistent with libertarian principles, if nothing else. The reason I originally posted this topic, is that it seems to me that it's rarely discussed and also somewhat controversial. I really wish the more prominent anarchists(Molyneux, Larken Rose, etc...) would delve into the subject a little deeper. I really believe it is an important issue. Like one previous commenter put it, probably one of the biggest grey areas in anarchist philosiphy.

 

It was suggested that I bring the issue up on one of Stefans call-in shows. Unfortunately, I have no "Skype" and live in a rural area with a slow internet connection. Maybe some one else could raise the issue sometime. It surely would be an interesting discussion.

 

Once again, Thanx.

Boris

[norpan]

I'm sorry what investments did the owner of this vacant lot make to make this land worth $15 million?  He did nothing but use state privilege to block others from using it.  Meanwhile the community brought it value by building restaurants, subways, roads, stores and businesses. 

 

"Night life on the block is very vibrant, you have the hotel on rivington across the street. Fine retail and restaurant establishments on both rivington and ludlow streets. With a c4-4a zoning a developer can have stores on the ground floor and apartments above. The property is right in the vicinity of all modes of transportation. The v and f trains are on delancey and essex street, the b15 is on allen street, which goes uptown. It's also in the vicinity of the sunshine theatre and the essex street market. "

 

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Rivington-St_New-York_NY_10002_M45248-62819?row=1&source=web

Oh, are we discussing the situation where there is a state? Well, that's obviously a completely different matter. I though we were discussing a flaw in anarchocapitalist thought.

 

I agree that the state makes it possible to get rich on the behalf of others.

[BorisM]

Oh, are we discussing the situation where there is a state? Well, that's obviously a completely different matter. I though we were discussing a flaw in anarchocapitalist thought.I agree that the state makes it possible to get rich on the behalf of others.

It seems that many think the issue will take care of itself in a stateless society. I'm not sure that it would. I think it all depends on people's understanding of land rights, which is why I bring the issue up. If you don't understand your rights, How will you, or your DRO protect them?

 

I can see that probably most(but not all) people that consider themselves anarchists can at least see that land and natural resources are a different type of property than man-made property. I think most so-called "normal" people(statists) don't. If by some miracle we can convince enough people that the state is un-neccesary, but they still see land monopoly, as it is today under the state, as legitimate, then the problem will still exist.

[NathanCJohnson]

Norpan,  How would land privitization be established without a state?  Some consider fencing in a territory like the lot above to be a legitimate method of indefinite homesteading. Can you clarify, what is needed for anarchocapitalism homesteading?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Private ownership of land predates the state in common law and many species of animal are territorial, no state required.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Before land is homesteaded we all have an equal right to use it. But out of no where one guy just randomly shows up and declares it is his own and uses force to keep every one else off of it. He starts claiming he and only he has the right to exclusively control and use that land, and if we don't give up our right to it, that it's use that is initiating the force against him!!! But, we all just moments before had an equal right to it right? when did we all give up our right to walk on that land to this one guy, and why should it be acceptable for him to initiate the threat or use of force against all of us to maintain his arbitrary borders?

Are you kidding?

[BorisM]

A final perspective & challenge in the form of a series of questions:

　

Are all rights universal(applying equally to all people)? pick one:

A) yes

B) no

　

If "A" is true then C, or D must also be true, correct?:

 

C) all people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth.

D) no people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth.

 

(Obviously, if some have the right and others don't then it is not a "universal" right, it has to be C or D, if it's "universal".)

　

If "D" is true, then we have no right to life, because we can not live without the use of land and natural resources. "C" must be true, if we have a right to life, correct?

　

Going back to the initial question: Are all rights universal?...If "B"(no) is true, then the whole argument against the state falls apart. If badges, titles, robes, laws written on a piece of paper, political rituals, etc...don't grant extra rights, why would anything else grant rights to some that others don't have?

　

　

I will attempt to debunk one common argument, before it's even brought up. That being the argument that if everyone has the right to purchase/rent/borrow land & resources that this somehow implies that the right is universal. It does not. Rights are not something than can or should be purchased. Would you consider a slave to be free, if he has a right to purchase himself from his master? Would that not imply that he is rightfully his masters property, until which time he is able to purchase himself? There are many things that we can purchase that are not rights: Healthcare, cars, boats, etc... this does not mean we have a "right" to these things. Something either is, or is not a right.

 

Certainly, I don't now everything. Maybe there's something I've missed. Can anyone prove my hypothesis wrong? If not, I have been successful in making the point that I've intended to make. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

[Cosmin]

Hi Boris, these are interesting questions, but empirically it seems the answer is not very relevant.

 

I would imagine that less than 1% of Earth's current population has ever homesteaded any land, but they can make a living nonetheless. Especially today, when intellectual work is a lot more valuable than in the past.

 

I mean how difficult is it for a couple to rent (or buy) an apartment, save some money and give their child an education? The child does not need any land, just some skills that he can sell in the market.

[Mike Larson]

A final perspective & challenge in the form of a series of questions:

　

Are all rights universal(applying equally to all people)? pick one:

A) yes

B) no

　

If "A" is true then C, or D must also be true, correct?:

 

C) all people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth.

D) no people have a right to homestead and or use land/nature to sustain themselves and create wealth.

 

(Obviously, if some have the right and others don't then it is not a "universal" right, it has to be C or D, if it's "universal".)

　

If "D" is true, then we have no right to life, because we can not live without the use of land and natural resources. "C" must be true, if we have a right to life, correct?

　

Going back to the initial question: Are all rights universal?...If "B"(no) is true, then the whole argument against the state falls apart. If badges, titles, robes, laws written on a piece of paper, political rituals, etc...don't grant extra rights, why would anything else grant rights to some that others don't have?

　

　

I will attempt to debunk one common argument, before it's even brought up. That being the argument that if everyone has the right to purchase/rent/borrow land & resources that this somehow implies that the right is universal. It does not. Rights are not something than can or should be purchased. Would you consider a slave to be free, if he has a right to purchase himself from his master? Would that not imply that he is rightfully his masters property, until which time he is able to purchase himself? There are many things that we can purchase that are not rights: Healthcare, cars, boats, etc... this does not mean we have a "right" to these things. Something either is, or is not a right.

 

Certainly, I don't now everything. Maybe there's something I've missed. Can anyone prove my hypothesis wrong? If not, I have been successful in making the point that I've intended to make. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

 

I think there is some confusion in this thread as to the fundamental principle of libertarian theory. We do not have a "right" to life, nor do we have a right to homestead. The only right that we have is a negative right... the right not to have our person or property aggressed against by others.

 

I just think we need to be careful not conflate the constitution with the NAP.

[Mishelle]

 "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,"

 

There is so much unused, unowned acreage in North and South America I'm not sure I really understand how this would be an issue.  Right now you, or anyone you know, could go out and buy acreage for $1,000 an start homesteading--farm, whatever you need to do to make a living--and then you'll see why so few people actually do it, or would have any interest at all.  So, suddenly every anarchist will wake up and want to homestead?

[Culain]

Are all rights universal(applying equally to all people)? pick one:

A) yes

B) no

 

 

Like mike said, you should probably define rights because many libertarians like myself don't believe in rights.

 

For example: Rights only exist in the presence of force. You only have a right to speak if someone can forcefully take it away from you, you only have a right to education if it's taken by force from another.

 

We don't ponder about, do we have the right to Hop up and down, do we have the right to every normal thing we do? We only ponder about actions/rights which others have the ability to enforce.

[BorisM]

I think there is some confusion in this thread as to the fundamental principle of libertarian theory. We do not have a "right" to life, nor do we have a right to homestead. The only right that we have is a negative right... the right not to have our person or property aggressed against by others.

 

I just think we need to be careful not conflate the constitution with the NAP.

Mike, have you really thought about what you are saying?! We don't have a right to life?!...So your saying that if I take your life(i.e. kill you), I haven't violated your rights? This has to be one of the most absurd comments that I've seen on here! The right to life is the same as the right to self-ownership(if you own yourself, you own your life!). That's not a libertarian principle?!

 

It has nothing to do with the Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution guaranteed a "right to life", it is, however in the Declaration of Independence.

 many libertarians like myself don't believe in rights.

 

Sounds like you are a nihilist, not a libertarian.

 "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,"

 

There is so much unused, unowned acreage in North and South America I'm not sure I really understand how this would be an issue.  Right now you, or anyone you know, could go out and buy acreage for $1,000 an start homesteading--farm, whatever you need to do to make a living--and then you'll see why so few people actually do it, or would have any interest at all.  So, suddenly every anarchist will wake up and want to homestead?

You have a point, but the price of land in South America is really irrelevant, when we are discussing principle. Also land is not the only natural resource. This isn't just about farming, or having a place to build a home. What about oxygen, bandwidth, minerals, crude oil reserves? Does a minority of the population have the right to monopolize these resources, thus excluding all others from having access?  

 nor do we have a right to homestead

Let me get this straight. No right to life, no right to homestead?...So, everyone that ever homesteaded a piece of land didn't have the right to do so? They did something immoral by homesteading, because they had no such right? Did you really stop to think about what you are saying?  

[Culain]

Boris, I think a better way to look at rights is to replace the term with: "Privileges."

 

I'm also kind of insulted that you called me a Nihilist because I said that these terms need to be carefully defined because Mike and myself probably have a different idea of what a "right" is compared to whatever you think they are.

[BorisM]

Boris, I think a better way to look at rights is to replace the term with: "Privileges."

 

I'm also kind of insulted that you called me a Nihilist because I said that these terms need to be carefully defined because Mike and myself probably have a different idea of what a "right" is compared to whatever you think they are.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between a right and a priviledge, is that a priviledge implies an obligation on someone else(i.e. "free" healthcare implies someone else is obligated to provide you with healthcare, therefore it's not a right). On the other hand a right imposes no burden on any other party(i.e. doesn't harm anyone else) Are we in agreement so far? 

 

Now the way I look at it, so long as my homesteading does not deny anyone else the equal right to do the same, I'm not imposing any obligation, or burden on any other party, right?

 

However, where I think most of the confusion/disagreement comes from, is the fact that land/resources are limited in supply, whereas other rights(i.e. free speech, privacy, right to one's labor) are basically unlimited, or more properly put "limited only by the equal rights of others to do the same". Homesteading, I believe to be a right, so long as it does not infringe on "the equal rights of other to do the same".

 

The problem arises when all the fixed resources have been previously monopolized

 

P.S. Did not mean to offend by labeling you a "nihilist", but you must admit the concept of "no rights" sounds somewhat nihilistic. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[Culain]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between a right and a privilege, is that a privilege implies an obligation on someone else(i.e. "free" healthcare implies someone else is obligated to provide you with healthcare). On the other hand a right imposes no burden on any other party(i.e. doesn't harm anyone else) Are we in agreement so far?

 

I listed this earlier in my first post that we (people in society) don't use the term rights unless there is a burden. If there is no burden you will never hear the term "right".

 

I want you to think up as many "rights" as you can, you should be able to come up with a hundred in a few minutes. ANY action that you perform (voluntary or involuntary) which is not coercive to another is a right, like picking my nose.

 

(i.e. free speech, privacy, right to one's labor) are basically unlimited

 

 

No, they are limited by time, energy, and location for example.

 

The problem arises when all the fixed resources have been previously monopolized

 

All resources sound a bit vague.

A resource is anything of subjective value. All of the resources which people have spent time and energy on are monopolized because people invested in them. What you seem to want is the profit off another's investment. You could acquire and use these same resources if you invest your own time and energy into obtaining them but because there is so much investment in them already you will have to build a lot of investment to your name.

[Mike Larson]

Mike, have you really thought about what you are saying?! We don't have a right to life?!...So your saying that if I take your life(i.e. kill you), I haven't violated your rights? This has to be one of the most absurd comments that I've seen on here! The right to life is the same as the right to self-ownership(if you own yourself, you own your life!). That's not a libertarian principle?!

 

Let me get this straight. No right to life, no right to homestead?...So, everyone that ever homesteaded a piece of land didn't have the right to do so? They did something immoral by homesteading, because they had no such right? Did you really stop to think about what you are saying?  

 

If you take my life, then you have violated my right to not be aggressed against physically. You have not violated my right to life. I'm not even sure what the right to life would mean. Actually I think that I agree with Culain on this one... I think it can become problematic to speak in terms of rights at all.

 

I think I'll just simply state that I concur with the non-aggression principle... that it is universally preferrable to not initiate aggression against each other's person or property.  What constitutes property? Well, that is, of course, what we are discussing here. I'm not sure I have anything significant to add to what has been said other than I don't think we can discard the homesteading principle by using the argument that we have a right to life. What does it mean to have a right to life (beyond what is stated in the NAP)?

[BorisM]

A resource is anything of subjective value. All of the resources which people have spent time and energy on are monopolized because people invested in them. What you seem to want is the profit off another's investment. You could acquire and use these same resources if you invest your own time and energy into obtaining them but because there is so much investment in them already you will have to build a lot of investment to your name.

By "resouces", I mean natural resources. More specifically non man-made resources. Naturally if someone has invested time & energy in creating something that did noy previously exist, then yes they would have property rights to that thing(or the right to monoplize it). That would be an extension of self-ownership. You own yourself, you own your labor, you own what your labor has poduced. What I'm discussing here is "natural" resources, "un-improved" land. Things that no-one has invested time & energy on. Do we all have an equal, universal right to these things? If not, then by what principle do some have the right and others not? 

If you take my life, then you have violated my right to not be aggressed against physically. You have not violated my right to life. I'm not even sure what the right to life would mean. Actually I think that I agree with Culain on this one... I think it can become problematic to speak in terms of rights at all.

 

What does the non-aggression principle mean, if we don't have rights? An aggressive act, is one that violates a right. If I slug you in the face, I'm aggressing against your right to self-ownership(you own your face). If I steal your stuff, I'm aggressing against your property rights. Isn't violating a right what constitutes aggression? I don't know that the term "aggression" even makes any sense without the concept of "rights"

[Mike Larson]

What does the non-aggression principle mean, if we don't have rights? An aggressive act, is one that violates a right. If I slug you in the face, I'm aggressing against your right to self-ownership(you own your face). If I steal your stuff, I'm aggressing against your property rights. Isn't violating a right what constitutes aggression? I don't know that the term "aggression" even makes any sense without the concept of "rights"

 

Yes BorisM, It seems difficult to make any progress in this discussion without first having some kind of a common understanding about concepts like rights, aggression, property, ownership etc.

 

That being said, I think that it is possible to validate the essence of the non-aggression principle (using UPB) without using any of the concepts mentioned above. For instance, we can simply ask questions like, "Is it universally preferable behavior to not hit each other in the face?" or "Is it universally preferable that, if a person finds an unused piece of land and plants a garden there, that others should not take the produce without his permission"? Etc. Etc.

 

Does this make sense?

[NathanCJohnson]

Medieval Iceland is held up as an anarchocapitalist model. I do admire the freedom of Iceland's non-territorial jurisdiction. We should be able to choose our leaders as they did (not just the illusion of democratic choice). But I was interested to learn the demise of this freedom came from an extension of land property rights much as Henry George predicted.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38044-iceland-and-the-demise-of-anarchy/

[BorisM]

Stefan Molyneux does an excellent job of explaining property rights through homesteading in this video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMfTbSBLks4

 

Everything he says makes perfect sense. However, he fails to address how homesteading rights can be universal, once a fixed amount of land/natural resources has all been previously homesteaded. He also fails to address how long one may make a claim to a given resource that he is no longer using. Still, an excellent explaination of property rights based on self-ownership.

[cab21]

ill try a few of these, and i am fond of being silly.

 

The right to land can equal not prevented from pursuing land, and pursuing trade. Rather than being a positive obligation for others to provide, it can just mean that others don't prevent the pursuit of people trying to acquire land through homestead or trade. If all land is homesteaded, land can still be gotten through trade.

 

Homestead rights can be universal, by no one being prevented from such pursuit.

 

It does not mean everyone gets land to homestead. it means neither bob or sally are prevented from the pursuit of homesteading. For something to be moral to be able to do universally not everyone has to do it, it can be moral to homestead, without everyone being required to homestead.

 

Right to life, right to not be deliberately killed/murdered, not a right to be provided everything deemed required for life. Who determines how much is required for each person to receive?

 

Who determines what "no longer using" is? for something to no longer be used, it must have once been used, so why not have the owner be the one that decides the usage cycle? this makes it different from land with a notice of abandonment, if there is a notice of  deliberate use or reservation.

 

in such a scenario of people that beleive in free markets, what is the interest of holding land not being used?

either the land is being used, or there is not much of a rational point in ownership. letting value rise on the land is one such use of land.  if someone could be put to work on the land to raise the value of the resources, that would also sound like a better use of the oppurtunity than letting land sit unused.

[BorisM]

 

Homestead rights can be universal, by no one being prevented from such pursuit.

 

 

If all the land is previously owned/occupied, doesn't that prevent the pursuit of homesteading?

 

Right to life, right to not be deliberately killed/murdered, not a right to be provided everything deemed required for life.

 

Who's asking anyone to provide something to someone else? No one provided the land. It was there long before the human race ever existed.

 

I think many are just so opposed to the idea of somebody getting something for nothing, that it clouds their judgement regarding land. The fact is land and natural resources ARE something for nothing. Somebody somewhere, at some time is gonna get something for nothing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The earth is a free gift from nature. The only question, that  I see is weather we all have an equal, universal right to this "free" gift, or do some have the right(loosely based on first come first served), and others not. 

 

Imagine a similar small-scale scenario that illistrates the same principle:

 

An employer asks 4 employees to work late one evening. They agree to work late. The boss is a pretty good guy. He realizes they're probably hungry since they're working through dinner time so he "gives" them a free large pizza, sliced into 8 pieces. He does not specify any specific conditions as to who gets how much pizza.

 

Now who gets the pizza? Does the first guy that opens the box get to take the whole thing?... 3/4 of it?... 1/2 of it?... however much he wants, leaving the rest to fight over the scraps? You'd probably think he was an A**hole, if he did, wouldn't you? Does it not seem reasonable that each employee should take 2 slices, so that everyone gets an equal share? Would this not be "universally preferrable behaviour"?

 

Considering land is a gift(from nature), the pizza is a gift(from the boss), why should the principle be any different?

[cab21]

If all the land is previously owned/occupied, doesn't that prevent the pursuit of homesteading?

 

 

it's not people that would be preventing homesteading, but conditions.

a land owner could, choose to give up land for someone else to homestead, and that would be a change of conditions.

 

new land can be created, say someone invents a process to turn biowaste into land, say someone builds multilevel greenhouses or gardens.

 

humans can use their brains to invent new ways of gaining property and land. 

 

Who's asking anyone to provide something to someone else? No one provided the land. It was there long before the human race ever existed.

 

if homesteaded land requires mixing labor with the land, people provided to labor in order to homestead the land

 

humans can use their brains to create ways to create more land

 

I think many are just so opposed to the idea of somebody getting something for nothing, that it clouds their judgement regarding land. The fact is land and natural resources ARE something for nothing. Somebody somewhere, at some time is gonna get something for nothing. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The earth is a free gift from nature. The only question, that  I see is weather we all have an equal, universal right to this "free" gift, or do some have the right(loosely based on first come first served), and others not.

 

homesteading is not getting land for nothing

homesteading is getting land for mixing labor with the land, then ownership comes from that and the owner can do what the owner chooses

a person does not get a natural resources for nothing, the person does get the natural resource as a result of the persons labor

the untouched earth is from nature, the homesteaded earth is touched earth, and from a mix of humans and nature

humans are part of nature... but making humans different the homesteading ishue applies.

land ownership under homesteading is something for something

if it's not, what is the land asking for that the land is not receiving?

is the land a active player in the game?

 

 

does one person need to give land to another and so on, for this to be universial to have a eaqual right to the land?

not all land is created eaqual from nature.

does one person with a square mile of fertile farmland, have to give land to anyone that wants part of the square mile of farmland rather than a part of the 10000 square miles of desert?

if 5280 people want to live in that mile, do they each get 1 square foot? how can someone live on one square foot of land ownership?

 

An employer asks 4 employees to work late one evening. They agree to work late. The boss is a pretty good guy. He realizes they're probably hungry since they're working through dinner time so he "gives" them a free large pizza, sliced into 8 pieces. He does not specify any specific conditions as to who gets how much pizza. Now who gets the pizza? Does the first guy that opens the box get to take the whole thing?... 3/4 of it?... 1/2 of it?... however much he wants, leaving the rest to fight over the scraps? You'd probably think he was an A**hole, if he did, wouldn't you? Does it not seem reasonable that each employee should take 2 slices, so that everyone gets an equal share? Would this not be "universally preferrable behaviour"?

why did the 4 employees work late?

why did they not ask for the amount of pizza they wanted before they did the work?

surly these employes are each getting paid to work late, unless they choose to work late for free?

they can each cooperate as to who gets how much pizza.

 

say the owner of the pizza, bought the pizza, and abandoned the pizza, first one to get the pizza is the first one that has mixed labor with the pizza

they all got paid for their work, they can all choose to not care about the pizza at all and go eat elsewhere

this pizza is not the only source of food around.

 

say there are 4 people

if one takes the pizza, the next person will kill that person and take the pizza

person 1- takes the pizza and is killed by person two

person 2- kills person 1, takes the pizza and is killed by person three

person 3- kills person 2, takes the pizza and is killed by person three

person 4- kills person 3 , takes the pizza

 

the last person to take the pizza would get the pizza

all 4 members would likely just go after different food sources where there is not such zero sum game, or decide to cooporate and have parts of the pizza, or cooperate to get additonal food sources

 

Considering land is a gift(from nature), the pizza is a gift(from the boss), why should the principle be any different?

 

what is nature?

is nature a actor in the game of life?

can nature choose to trade, rather than given a gift

how does nature communicate

 

the principle of who mixes labor first stays the same here

the principle of being free to go elsewhere if one oppurtunity is already taken is also there

 

i'm not sure how many island are out there in nature with

1 tree

1 coconut

no freash water

no soil to grow the tree and coconut

such islands of limited oppurtunity for growth don't sound habital, but could be created into a habital place with labor from other places with other resources.

[BorisM]

 

it's not people that would be preventing homesteading, but conditions.

 ??? The conditions have been changed by "people". If other "people" hadn't already homesteaded all the land, there would still be some available for homesteading. In what other way have conditions been changed, other than by the actions of people? 

new land can be created, say someone invents a process to turn biowaste into land, say someone builds multilevel greenhouses or gardens.

Natural resources(such as land) can't be created. Land can be moved around, it can be modified, improved upon. I don't see how land(in it's natural state) can be created. Assuming you can create more land, where you gonna put it? You need some place to put it don't you? The ocean maybe? The ocean is a natural resources as well, so you would need access to the ocean. Where did the biowaste come from? It had to come from some resource, didn't it? For the sake of this discussion, when I refer to "land" I mean un-improved land & un-improved natural resources. You can improve/modify/re-locate land, but I don't see how you can create it. You can't create something from nothing. 

homesteading is not getting land for nothinghomesteading is getting land for mixing labor with the land, then ownership comes from that and the owner can do what the owner choosesa person does not get a natural resources for nothing, the person does get the natural resource as a result of the persons laborthe untouched earth is from nature, the homesteaded earth is touched earth, and from a mix of humans and nature

You are absolutely correct. Homesteading is not "something for nothing". Homesteading requires labor, which creates property based on self-ownership(You own yourself, you own your labor, you own that which your labor creates). The "un-improved" land, i.e. the land before it was homesteaded, didn't cost humanity a thing. It was just "there". I'm certainly not trying to argue against property rights. What I'm saying is that property rights are derived from self-ownership. I'm saying that all possess an equal right to create property, which is what homesteading is. Once someone has mixed his labor with land, that is rightfully his exclusive property. I'm not suggesting we should take property & divide it up amongst anyone who wants it. I'm suggesting that the oppourtunity to create property should be universal.I think the problem is in defining "land" as property in the first place. If property is derived from self-ownership, then "land"(in it's un-improved natural state) shouldn't be considered property at all. "Land" is not property, it is only the oppourtunity to create property. This "oppourtunity" is what should be universal. It is not a positive right. I'm not suggesting re-distributing anything that any person applied their labor to. 

say the owner of the pizza, bought the pizza, and abandoned the pizza, first one to get the pizza is the first one that has mixed labor with the pizzathey all got paid for their work, they can all choose to not care about the pizza at all and go eat elsewherethis pizza is not the only source of food around.

So you would be O.K. with the first person that got to it scarfing the whole pizza down & letting his co-workers go hungry? He had that right 'cause he got to it first? I find that hard to believe. I'm certain 99% or more of the population would consider him an A**hole. It's certainly not universally preferred behavior. The pizza may not be the "only source of food around", but the earth is the only source of sustainance for the human race. Which makes it even more important that everyone has access to it.

[cab21]

 ??? The conditions have been changed by "people". If other "people" hadn't already homesteaded all the land, there would still be some available for homesteading. In what other way have conditions been chahged, other than by the actions of people?

 

if there is no original land left, then there is simply no longer the ability to homestead

homesteading would in such case no longer be a option.

the right to not be prevented from optaining someone you cannot obtain, is universial

one person's action in one space, does not limit another person from persuring the same action in a different space.

if one person has one square mile, and all square miles have 1 person, this is a effect of each person having one square mile, rather than the fault of any one person preventing others from having their own square mile. the person is just preventing another person from taking over the square mile that the individual owns.

one person is not responsible for all people, and all land ownership.

 

the universal right to do something, does not require the universal ability to do it.

 

 

natural resources(such as land) can't be created. Land can be moved around, it can be modified, improved upon. I don't see how land(in it's natural state) can be created. Assuming you can create more land, where you gonna put it? You need some place to put it don't you? The ocean maybe? The ocean is a natural resources as well. Where did the biowaste come from? It had to come from some resource, didn't it? For the sake of this discussion, when I refer to "land" I mean un-improved land & un-improved natural resources. You can improve/modify/re-locate land, but I don't see how you can create it. You can't create something from nothing.

 

what was land created from?

the actions of life have modified and improved and created land.

so the homesteading theory puts a human over a beaver that creates a dam for instance. the beaver is modifing and improving the land for the sake of the beaver.

so biowaste and natural resources had to come from other resources and evoluton of life using and modifying land.

continuing the favor of humans in homesteading, why do humans get to eat a coconut, rather than the coconut tree deciding who gets to eat the coconut?

life in nature modifies and improves land, no land just existed unmotified by some form of life.

so anarcho capitalist thought gives preference to humans over beavers and coconut trees, and the modifications of humans over the modifications of other life forms.

in that sense rights can be a form of manipulation, and really just a way to get humans to cooperate together rather than act more like other lifeforms that are not giving each other such options.

if trees think about the universality of trees, and owls, i don't know.

 

i don't know if this is good, but it's something to try out

 

if nature can create land

and humans are part of nature

humans can create land as part of nature

 

if land is created by modification

nature motifying land can create land

humans , as part of nature , motifying land can create land

 

if a person has the right to modify land, not motified by others

and all land is motified by others

a person still has the right to modify land not mofied by others, just not the ability to do so by fact of all land already being modified.

[BorisM]

 

motifying land can create land

I would have to disagree. Modifying land creates property. It doesn't create land it only changes it's form. 

if a person has the right to modify land, not motified by othersand all land is motified by othersa person still has the right to modify land not mofied by others, just not the ability to do so by fact of all land already being modified.

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

[cab21]

I would have to disagree. Modifying land creates property. It doesn't create land it only changes it's form.

 

 

when volcanos erupt and form islands, is this process to be called modification or creation?

how is land created?

 

 

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

 

if i own private land that i have labored with, and prevent someone from destroying or taking over what i have created, am i preventing that person from search elswhere?

i think rights can only be something a individual has, and not a collective.

 

say the right is the right to not have others take homesteaded property

someone who does not have homesteaded property in the first place, will not have this right violated

someone who does have homesteaded property in the first place, could have the right violated.

it's not the right to have unhomesteaded land available to homestead, its the right to not have homesteaded land taking away.

 

say the right to not have one's penis circumsized,

it's universial in the sense that it applies to all people

but not all people have a penis in the first place to protect or choose if it gets circumsized.

this does not mean there is unequal protection as much as it means that only some people own one to protect in the first place.

 

how is too much land to be determined?

all must have eaqual access to eaqual amount of resources?

is this to be redivided everytime there is a population change?

how does a person living at 1000 feet above sea level, redistribute the air he breaths to a person living at sea level or vise versa, if they are each supposed to get eaqual air?

sure, not taking land away from people that have homesteaded land, will prevent others from having that exact land and exact resource, but does not prevent the person from other land and other resources, or a way to trade to get access.

 

say the right is the right to not be prevented from free trade, that is something where there is no limit of supply.

a person cannot free trade if others are telling the person how much land he can and cannot homestead.