Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Roycerson]

I stand corrected.  I am a libertarian by virtue of "The Cato University" which is a bunch of books and audio tapes available at the Cato website.  I have not until now involved myself with other libertarian organizations or much libertarian discussion.  
I thought that a libertarian was a libertarian and anyone who felt the need to add anything to that was in some way not a libertarian.

However,  
     I see great value in BillG's arguments about personal property rights.  As a resident of Oklahoma I was required to take Oklahoma History in High School (a class I actually paid attention to).  I am familiar with the land runs where private citizens could just up and claim land as their own possession.   (Land previously given to many tribes, though that is a different issue)
Most of you are familiar with this phenomenon by virtue of the Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman duo in that blockbuster movie "Far and Away".

So,  Neo-geo-leo-theo-libertarians I ask you this...

If a person claimed land in say the land run of 1889 and never mixed his own labor with it, did he ever own the land?  More importantly, do his ancestors own the land?

And to support what I believe is Bill's argument, if I am poor and hungry and don't want to supply photographic identification to an employer or merely don't have any proper documents certifying my identity, do I have a right to grow food on said land?

DISCUSS

[johnadams]

Putting aside for a moment the theoretical arguments about whether the geo-libertarian idea of abolishing private land makes sense or not (that is one of its principles, yes?), I think that such an idea is hugely impractical. Neither NH residents nor the vast majority of Porcupines are going to go for such a proposal anytime in the next century or more, so the question is rather moot. If Geo-Libertarians want to live in the Free State they will probably have to give up on any ideas they may have of socializing land in their lifetimes, but they can work with other Porcupines to promote all the other ideas of Libertarianism. If Geos instead push for land socialization then they will likely have a political war on their hands, with the majority of Porcs as well as NH residents.

[LeopardPM]

So,  Neo-geo-leo-theo-libertarians I ask you this...

If a person claimed land in say the land run of 1889 and never mixed his own labor with it, did he ever own the land?  More importantly, do his ancestors own the land?

libertarian, thank you, call me a lib or libby for short if ya want... I enjoy CATO very much as well, and the Mises Institute

Re question:
First, was the 'land grab' legal?  Not be my standards, those humans who were there before have prior claim and they 'own' it rightfully if we are to go back in time...

If, tho, during this land grab, a settler claimed a piece of land which had no prior occupant/owner, then I don't care if they mixed their labor, their vegetables, or their clothes on the land OR not at all - they are the first owner and as property it shall follow as every other property: inheritable, sellable, giveable.  I never swallowed the whole 'Smithian' (I think) 'mix ones labor with the soil' = property thing.  If I find a seashell and do nothing with it for 20 years but keep it in a box, yes, it is still mine even though I didn't make it into a necklace or something: same for land or any property for that reason as land is NO different.

michael

[Roycerson]

Mr. Adams,
                I agree with you wholeheartedly, specifically this thing about property scarcity tax seems entirely un-libertarian.  I admit I don't know anything of the subject.  I am now on the lookout for a good piece of geo-libertarian literature.

But is undeveloped land really owned?  I don't care who showed up with guns and said "it's mine to do with as I please or to deed to whomever I please".  In the libertarian sense of ownership.  Does this land belong to anyone?  Or can a person requiring subsistence be forced away from such land and denied the ability to use it to maintain his own existence?

[johnadams]

Mr. Adams,
                I agree with you wholeheartedly, specifically this thing about property scarcity tax seems entirely un-libertarian.  I admit I don't know anything of the subject.  I am now on the lookout for a good piece of geo-libertarian literature.

But is undeveloped land really owned?  I don't care who showed up with guns and said "it's mine to do with as I please or to deed to whomever I please".  In the libertarian sense of ownership.  Does this land belong to anyone?  Or can a person requiring subsistence be forced away from such land and denied the ability to use it to maintain his own existence?

I am not aware of any undeveloped land in New Hampshire which someone does not claim to "own," whether it be a private individual, private corporation or a government. I believe that Geo-libertarians would claim that property rights to "undeveloped" land should be declared invalid by the appropriate governmental body. As to trespassers, I suppose Geo-libs wouldn't have a problem with them, since they wouldn't recognize land ownership to begin with, but the NH town and state governments likely would uphold a landowner's right to keep trespassers off his undeveloped land.

[LeopardPM]

But is undeveloped land really owned?

what does it matter if it is 'developed' or not?  If land is property then it should be treated in the same manner as all other property: does it matter if I use my bike or not - or do I lose ownership after a certain time frame?

I don't care who showed up with guns and said "it's mine to do with as I please or to deed to whomever I please".

I don't understand you here - did they show up before or after it was owned?  If they were the first humans to 'discover' the land, then its theirs.  If someone else claimed it first, then these 'men with guns' people are in the wrong.

Does this land belong to anyone?

again, which land? Unclaimed or claimed land?

Or can a person requiring subsistence be forced away from such land and denied the ability to use it to maintain his own existence?

They can rightfully be forced away from property which they have no ownership to....

[Roycerson]

In that case I don't believe our differences on this matter can be reconciled.

I do have one more question.  More for others benefit than yours as I see where you stand.

Does the United States own the moon?  We were there first.  We put a flag there.  So the entire surface of it and any property rights to be obtained including mineral and surface is ours to populate, cultivate and harvest for whatever purpose we deem appropriate.  Maybe gravel for our driveways or Perhaps a prison colony.   For any purpose it is the sole property of the United States Government and it's emmissaries barring all other's of this world or of others.  Is that correct?  After all....we did plant a flag.  It is still there isn't it.  guys...our flag..
Our flags there right.  We're covered aren't we.

[LeopardPM]

Does the United States own the moon?  We were there first.  We put a flag there.  So the entire surface of it and any property rights to be obtained including mineral and surface is ours to populate, cultivate and harvest for whatever purpose we deem appropriate.  Maybe gravel for our driveways or Perhaps a prison colony.  For any purpose it is the sole property of the United States Government and it's emmissaries barring all other's of this world or of others.  Is that correct?  After all....we did plant a flag.  It is still there isn't it.  guys...our flag..
Our flags there right.  We're covered aren't we.

this is an area I have not yet the answer for... my own thoughts follow the "we own that part we have physically explored, the area immediately in the vicinity of our flag" - the whole moon? no, not even 1 square mile....

If we were to crawl across the entire surface AND lay claim to it (which we haven't done so in my mind its ALL still up for grabs) then, yes, 'we' would own it (though I am against a 'government' owning anything, its just plain wrong.  My own scenario would then be: private firm or individual could go to the moon and lay claim to whichever part they explored physically - this means full ownership: mining, prisoner thing, whatever, including barring others from trespassing.

But, more easily contemplatable and understandable:  private firm journeys to asteriod belt.  Hauls back to earth large asteriod.  They own it.  They are free to mine it and enjoy whatever profits could be made.  they are free to inhabit it (or try to anyways).  It is property.

Am interested in your opinion on this as well - also would like to hear from Herself, New Intellectual, (I know where Bill stands - its Everyones!), and rhythmStar.

waiting,
michael

PS:  Roy - is it possible for you to explain the rationale behind the soil mixing thing to me relatively simply as I have only a small capacity for understanding new ideas and such.  The reason why I never understood it is because I considered someone who just sat on his land, never ate a berry or planted a seed - just his physical presence was enough to justify ownership.  When there is some kinda condition (especially a vague one...) like 'mixing one's labor' to ownership it opens up the whole thing to interpretation.  I would like to hear what you have to say even if our views are irreconcilable.

michael

[TMA68]

And to support what I believe is Bill's argument, if I am poor and hungry and don't want to supply photographic identification to an employer or merely don't have any proper documents certifying my identity, do I have a right to grow food on said land?

Nope, you merely have the "right" to beg for either a job or, if no one is willing to employ you, for charity. If that doesn't work, you have the "right" to starve to death. But that's okay, because you'll "own" yourself as you starve. And to think I was silly enough to suggest that the right-wing libertarian version of "self-ownership" was meaningless unless you happened to have a land-title. What was I thinking!

Todd Altman

[RhythmStar]

Can you all stop picking on Bill G?  This is a guy who is one of the few members actually doing anything for the FSP.  Yes, this thread technically isn't about membership in the FSP, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that its targetting Bill.  We all are aware of Bill's difference in opinion regarding property rights.  Let's not give the guy undue hardship.

Well said.   The prejudice and vindictiveness that these threads have revealed on the part of some posters I find abhorrent, even dehumanizing in extreme cases.  If free thought and discourse are to be disallowed and attack pack tactics employed against those with controversial opinions, then the 'Free' in FSP must surely be some form of rhetorical appelation.

 

BTW, I also note that a nuymber of very intelligent and cool heads have contributed after the post I replied to.   That makes me feel a lot better, for what ever that is worth.

As for LeopardPM's question about Moon real estate, I say that there is no shortage of airless rock in the solar system, so the Lockean Proviso is statisfied and no economic scarcity rent can apply.   In fact, since all the necessities of life (aside from 3D space and an insufficient gravity) must be either brought or manufactured, it is hard to see how an economic scarcity for Lunar land could develop, unless it was perhaps based on nearness to some man-created facility.

The scarce and precious commons is the living Earth.  Unique in the Universe, critical for human life (as we now know it), and utterly irreplaceable by any means currently known to humankind, the Earth itself is scarcer than gold, since gold occurs throughout the vast cosmos, yet there is only one Earth.

RS

[BillG]

Putting aside for a moment the theoretical arguments about whether the geo-libertarian idea of abolishing private land makes sense or not (that is one of its principles, yes?), I think that such an idea is hugely impractical. Neither NH residents nor the vast majority of Porcupines are going to go for such a proposal anytime in the next century or more, so the question is rather moot. If Geo-Libertarians want to live in the Free State they will probably have to give up on any ideas they may have of socializing land in their lifetimes, but they can work with other Porcupines to promote all the other ideas of Libertarianism. If Geos instead push for land socialization then they will likely have a political war on their hands, with the majority of Porcs as well as NH residents.

No - I have been consistent in all of my posts that land remaining in private hands is the most efficient and productive way to create the things we need to live...what I have been saying is the economic scarcity rent that naturally attaches to a location as others who want to use it bid up the price is created by the community and should be returned in order to create a trully free society based on self-ownership.

Because NH only has the local property tax as the major source of revenue this would be fairly easy to do thru the "simple tax shift" - off of buildings (the fruits of your labor) and on to site values.

Oh and by the way we can address the sprawl and zoning issues in one fell swoop!

[BillG]

Can you all stop picking on Bill G?  This is a guy who is one of the few members actually doing anything for the FSP.  Yes, this thread technically isn't about membership in the FSP, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that its targetting Bill.  We all are aware of Bill's difference in opinion regarding property rights.  Let's not give the guy undue hardship.

Well said.   The prejudice and vindictiveness that these threads have revealed on the part of some posters I find abhorrent, even dehumanizing in extreme cases.  If free thought and discourse are to be disallowed and attack pack tactics employed against those with controversial opinions, then the 'Free' in FSP must surely be some form of rhetorical appelation.

 

BTW, I also note that a nuymber of very intelligent and cool heads have contributed after the post I replied to.   That makes me feel a lot better, for what ever that is worth.

As for LeopardPM's question about Moon real estate, I say that there is no shortage of airless rock in the solar system, so the Lockean Proviso is statisfied and no economic scarcity rent can apply.   In fact, since all the necessities of life (aside from 3D space and an insufficient gravity) must be either brought or manufactured, it is hard to see how an economic scarcity for Lunar land could develop, unless it was perhaps based on nearness to some man-created facility.

The scarce and precious commons is the living Earth.  Unique in the Universe, critical for human life (as we now know it), and utterly irreplaceable by any means currently known to humankind, the Earth itself is scarcer than gold, since gold occurs throughout the vast cosmos, yet there is only one Earth.

RS

bravo RS...very well stated IMHO!

[BillG]

ok, anything huh?

so, lets take an automobile then... you agree that this is an example of property (and is different then land)?

yes, let's take an automobile (the evil device that it is and the scorn of all good "greenies!")  

what shall we do with said automobile?

[johnadams]

Putting aside for a moment the theoretical arguments about whether the geo-libertarian idea of abolishing private land makes sense or not (that is one of its principles, yes?), I think that such an idea is hugely impractical. Neither NH residents nor the vast majority of Porcupines are going to go for such a proposal anytime in the next century or more, so the question is rather moot. If Geo-Libertarians want to live in the Free State they will probably have to give up on any ideas they may have of socializing land in their lifetimes, but they can work with other Porcupines to promote all the other ideas of Libertarianism. If Geos instead push for land socialization then they will likely have a political war on their hands, with the majority of Porcs as well as NH residents.

No - I have been consistent in all of my posts that land remaining in private hands is the most efficient and productive way to create the things we need to live...what I have been saying is the economic scarcity rent that naturally attaches to a location as others who want to use it bid up the price is created by the community and should be returned in order to create a trully free society based on self-ownership.

Because NH only has the local property tax as the major source of revenue this would be fairly easy to do thru the "simple tax shift" - off of buildings (the fruits of your labor) and on to site values.

Oh and by the way we can address the sprawl and zoning issues in one fell swoop!

OK, so your proposal is for a shift within the local property tax. That is certainly less radical than socializing land, though it still differs from regular American libertarianism. [In NH, are you seeking] to promote this proposal from the get-go or would you be willing to defer this issue until a later date and work with regular libertarians on the major issues on which you agree with them? If the latter, then this debate need not be so divisive and it is merely an intellectual exercise.

[Correction made in brackets.]

[rdeacon]

Thanks RS, yeah, the FSP sometimes does get into the "are you part of the team or not" mentality that is more destructive than productive.  If the purpose of this thread is for genuine debate than thats fine, but I want to avoid more clannish in-fighting, especially considering that Bill's not just some cyber-member, he's an FSP activist already at work in NH.