Is the homesteading principle immoral?

[dfv888]

Let me just say that I am not an anarchist but I have enjoyed reading these forums and I've learned much about the inevitable abuses of state power.  I hope to engage in civil(!) discourse about one of the fundamental problems I see with anarchism. 

 

First, a little about me.  I founded a mid-sized IT company in a Midwestern town, having worked my way up from a very poor childhood.  One of my job functions is to learn the way that other businesses work and then help them to develop processes that improve their efficiency.  These days business owners and CEO's often come to me for advice not just with their technology but also with their entire business workflow.  I tell you this only to establish that I have a very good understanding of free market principles and of how our economy works.  I also know what it means to have nothing, to wonder if there will be food on the table or a roof over my head.

 

This brings me to the topic of this particular thread, which is my belief that the homesteading principle (at least as it's been described on this site) is immoral.  Any property ownership system which does not guarantee every single person the ability to shape the resources of the world into food and shelter is inherently flawed.  Explained another way, survival for each of us depends upon resources from the land and seas.  Only once we (collectively) have raw materials in our hands can we shape them into something useful.  It's not moral for any one of us to hoard more resources than are necessary for our survival if there are still people who are starving because property ownership has denied them access to the resources of the world.  Only once all people (who are willing to work) have eaten is it ethical for anybody to accumulate additional resources (property).  Every person in this world should have an equal right to life, don't you agree?  Doesn't the right to life supersede the right to property? 

 

So how can we ensure that every person has an equal right to shape the world's resources to provide for themselves while still protecting the concept of land ownership?  I'd love to hear your insights on this. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This post requires so much unpacking just to even find out if there's some argument or claim that CAN be rebutted. It's a confused mess of undefined terms, sweeping moral claims, unproven assumptions and goal-post moving. It's like you just throw a big bundle of Gordian knots at us and expect us to do all the work you should have done before posting. It's lazy.

There's nothing immoral about homesteading.

[PatrickC]

So how can we ensure that every person has an equal right to shape the world's resources to provide for themselves while still protecting the concept of land ownership?  I'd love to hear your insights on this. 

 

Hi, and welcome to the boards. One of the problems with this statement, is that it assumes gathering resources and using land is some kind of zero sum game. Even with six billion humans living on this planet, there is still enough space for more to inhabit it quite peacefully. Some people will gather more, some less. The more productive will naturally become the richest and those less productive will manage probably quite happily.

 

You would need to explain why you consider homesteading immoral. If the principle is 'not sharing', 'violence' or 'hoarding' for example. Although you may have others. You would need to then explain why those principles are immoral. Any theory you have, must be more than just adjectives, you would need to show how let's say hoarding actually makes people starve.

 

I just have to wonder with these kinds of objections to property ownership that it's partly because of what we experience already. The state just commandeers or regulates resources and property to such degrees, that these resources often become unreasonably expensive and a very few get very rich from it. Take the energy companies in the UK, they just hiked their prices up by 20% on the consumer, then publish a net increase in profits from the previous year of 22%. Naturally this just annoys people. Whilst in theory it's still plausibly possible, the removal of a central authority handing out special privileges will eliminate much of it with competition.

[dfv888]

This post requires so much unpacking just to even find out if there's some argument or claim that CAN be rebutted. It's a confused mess of undefined terms, sweeping moral claims, unproven assumptions and goal-post moving. It's like you just throw a big bundle of Gordian knots at us and expect us to do all the work you should have done before posting. It's lazy.

There's nothing immoral about homesteading.

 

Which of the words are you having trouble defining?  

Which "sweeping moral claims" do you find fault with?

Which "unproven assumptions" are you referring to?

What goal posts do you perceive as moving?

 

If you don't understand something I said or if you disagree with me then please ask questions or make a logical argument, don't just assert that I am lazy and then make no case to support your own position.  Civil discourse is all that I ask of you.

 

The simple claim that I made, which I would love to hear your logical refutation of, is that the Homesteading Principle (as it is currently described on this site, at least) is immoral because it does not provide a rock-solid guarantee that everybody can have access to the world's resources in order to at least be able to feed themselves.  It places the right to property higher than the right to life.

 

Now please, refute away.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Which of the words are you having trouble defining?  

Which "sweeping moral claims" do you find fault with?

Which "unproven assumptions" are you referring to?

What goal posts do you perceive as moving?

 

If you don't understand something I said or if you disagree with me then please ask questions or make a logical argument, don't just assert that I am lazy and then make no case to support your own position.  Civil discourse is all that I ask of you.

 

The simple claim that I made, which I would love to hear your logical refutation of, is that the Homesteading Principle (as it is currently described on this site, at least) is immoral because it does not provide a rock-solid guarantee that everybody can have access to the world's resources in order to at least be able to feed themselves.  It places the right to property higher than the right to life.

 

Now please, refute away.

Refute WHAT? Refute your opinion? You made no valid argument. You just stated what you think. Arguments have premises supported by evidence and conclusions that logically follow from them. You might as well have said "The homesteading principle is immoral because there's no evidence that it can always happen and people may die at some point and what if there's bad land and thunder storms that kill livestock and some 27 year 'may not understand it. Now please, refute away". You just lazily point forward your opinion and expect everyone else yo chase up what you mean by everything.  What's the god-damn argument? 

[Rob_Ilir]

"Homesteading Principleis immoral because it does not provide a rock-solid guarantee that everybody can have access to the world's resources in order to at least be able to feed themselves."

 

How would you prove that assertion? Everybody own themselves and actions, that is the only rock solid guarantee that you need to survive. 

 

If you cant feed yourself, dont make kids to torture.

 

 

"It places the right to property higher than the right to life."

 

Life is property, thats where the self ownership and homesteading comes from. 

[wdiaz03]

Am I wrong here or is this a rehash of the thread BorisM started a while back

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37650-a-fatal-flaw-in-libertariananarcho-capitalist-thought/

[endostate]

It's not moral for any one of us to hoard more resources than are necessary for our survival if there are still people who are starving because property ownership has denied them access to the resources of the world.

 

A dialysis patient reminds you that only need one kidney to survive. Is hoarding your extra one immoral? 

Every person in this world should have an equal right to life, don't you agree?  Doesn't the right to life supersede the right to property? 

 

Does the dialysis patient's right to live supercede your right to your extra kidney?

 

So how can we ensure that every person has an equal right to shape the world's resources to provide for themselves while still protecting the concept of land ownership?  I'd love to hear your insights on this. 

 

Adherence to property rights already ensures equal rights to unowned things, doesn't it?

[PatrickC]

You need to first make an argument, that doesn't solely consist of adjectives and assertions. There is nothing to refute at the moment.

[aeonicentity]

1) How can I steal property from people which they haven't bothered to claim, or work for? Is Bill Gates stealing microsoft from me because he invented it first?

 

2) While wealthy people certainly hold a lot of money, however, there is absolutely zero proof that wealthy people are holding all the vital life-sustaining resources. In fact this is absolutely not the case. Most everyone has houses, food, and even luxury goods. Fewer than 3,000  people starve to death every year in the US, and I imagine most of those people are those with substance abuse habits, or other debilitating mental disorders which prevent them from operating well in society, no mater how egalitarian it is. I think we've already eliminated starvation in our society, its time to make profits.

 

3) There is absolutely no grounds upon which the claim that "rich people hoard resources" can be founded. If you actually understood capitalism you would know this. Unless they're filling swimming pools with gold coins, and swimming in them like Scrooge McDuck, They aren't 'hoarding' their precious money. Most of the time wealthy people re-invest their wealth in companies which in turn make more money, and create jobs. This actually is a case for why we should give rich people MORE money, because they obviously have an invested interest in making more of it, so more money can then be VOULUNTARIALLY redistributed through the financial system.

[Hugh Akston]

So you believe if I go to the beach and put my towel down to claim a spot to sun myself after having a nice refreshing swim that I've acted immoraly?

[TheRobin]

Wouldn't it be mostly determined by the avoidability of the one doing the homestading. I mean, IF there ever was a situation where literally homestading a piece of land would cause someone to starve as a result of that and they had no way to avoid that, then wouldn't that be immoral (always assuming that not homestading wouldn't mean the unavoidable death of the hometeader)?

 

Just that, chances of that ever happeing are practically zero, given that people plan and foresee such things and adapt to them IF they're free to do so.

[BorisM]

Homesteading is perfectly moral, so long as all have an equal right to homestead. The problem is that land and natural resources are fixed in supply. When there is no longer enough quality land/resources left for everyone to homestead, those who got here first have rights that those that came later do not have. This, then violates the principle that all rights are universal.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Homesteading is perfectly moral, so long as all have an equal right to homestead. The problem is that land and natural resources are fixed in supply. When there is no longer enough quality land/resources left for everyone to homestead, those who got here first have rights that those that came later do not have. This, then violates the principle that all rights are universal.

Latecomers still had the right to homestead, they just lacked the opportunity. That's bad luck not denial of rights. 

[BorisM]

 

Latecomers still had the right to homestead, they just lacked the opportunity. That's bad luck not denial of rights.

 Homesteading is the opportunity. Homesteading is the opportunity to create property. If homesteading is a right, it should be universal.

[cab21]

 say homesteading is a action, not a oppurtunity to act

the right to the action is universial

keven has the right to homestead

susan has the right to homestead

all have the right to homestead

noone is left out of the right to the act.

[BorisM]

My bad: Homesteading is the "act" of creating property. the access to land/natural resourses is the "opportunity". If the opportunity to exercise a right(homestaeding) is being denied by the action of others, is this not an act of aggression? Shouldn't the opportunity for one to exercise a right be universal?