How do you address the fact that most property that has been acquired in the US, and elsewhere in the World, was at one time appropriated through force and fraud. I'm referring to cases where there is no clear legal title. For example Ignoc the cave man has a plot of land. He has his plot taken from him by Aploc the farmer. Aploc the farmer sells his land to the next guy and this goes on, through either intrafamilial gifts or sale, for numerous generations. Then the land is taken again by force and is held in the same family for a few generations. It is then sold. How does the Lockeian/Rothbardian theory of property rights address such an issue? I bring up this issue because they had a discussion regarding geolibertarianism on the Liberty Conspiracy with Gardner Goldsmith. While I don't believe in the idea of common ownership of land for practical reasons, the tragedy of the commons for example, I find it hard to totally discount the idea that the concept of homesteading only works as a moral approach in the abstract. I can't think of a piece of land that definitely has not been acquired or improved through force or fraud at least one point in its history. Is there a statute of limitations on restitution and responsibility? Do people believe on this board believe the idea of homesteading to be a realistic concept or a convenient shorthand? Thoughts, comments, and related issues appreciated.
Rothbard dealed with this issue several times. Basically, if land is taken by force or fraud and the original owner cannot be found, then the land can be "re-homesteaded." If the land is taken by force or fraud and the original owner (or clearly identifiable descendants) can be found, then the land must be returned to the original homesteaders.
Political Atheists Blog
CrazyCoot: How do you address the fact that most property that has been acquired in the US, and elsewhere in the World, was at one time appropriated through force and fraud.
How do you address the fact that most property that has been acquired in the US, and elsewhere in the World, was at one time appropriated through force and fraud.
Proof? Or you mean, for example, the USA government claiming ownership over 90% of Nevada?
I'm referring to cases where there is no clear legal title.
Have any actual examples?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: CrazyCoot: How do you address the fact that most property that has been acquired in the US, and elsewhere in the World, was at one time appropriated through force and fraud. Proof? Or you mean, for example, the USA government claiming ownership over 90% of Nevada? I'm referring to cases where there is no clear legal title. Have any actual examples?
By no clear legal title I meant that there are no clear descendants to whom the property can be given. And that's the whole point about land that was acquired through force and fraud without any clear claimants; it's hard to prove. But do you really buy into the concept that most land was not taken through force and fraud at one point in time?
What is the statute of limitations for rehomesteading?
krazy kaju: Rothbard dealed with this issue several times. Basically, if land is taken by force or fraud and the original owner cannot be found, then the land can be "re-homesteaded." If the land is taken by force or fraud and the original owner (or clearly identifiable descendants) can be found, then the land must be returned to the original homesteaders.
Does that mean the descendants of slaveowners are obligated to pay the descendants of slaves that their forefathers owned and used, and what about the issue of land taken from indigenous peoples?
CrazyCoot:Does that mean the descendants of slaveowners are obligated to pay the descendants of slaves that their forefathers owned and used
No. You cannot hold someone responsible for a crime that they did not do.
CrazyCoot:what about the issue of land taken from indigenous peoples?
If you are a direct descendant of Chief Johnny and if Chief Johnny clearly owned some plot of land, then you can claim the said plot of land. If you are a Mohawk and you go to New York and claim back Mohawk land, then someone will think you're crazy, and rightfully so.
Is it just me or is there a certain moral hazard to this legal code? It seems to offer perverse incentives such that, should one slaughter the original owner of a piece of land and all identifiable descendants, he may then justly re-homestead said land as his own.
CrazyCoot:But do you really buy into the concept that most land was not taken through force and fraud at one point in time?
Okay, but what's your point exactly? What are you suggesting? That all property is theft because at one point, long ago, some one forcefully took it from someone else? What does that have to do with me?
Aquila:Is it just me or is there a certain moral hazard to this legal code? It seems to offer perverse incentives such that, should one slaughter the original owner of a piece of land and all identifiable descendants, he may then justly re-homestead said land as his own.
How did you reach this absurd conclusion? Slaughtering someone clearly violates the NAP.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Aquila: Is it just me or is there a certain moral hazard to this legal code? It seems to offer perverse incentives such that, should one slaughter the original owner of a piece of land and all identifiable descendants, he may then justly re-homestead said land as his own.
No, that person should still be held accountable for property rights violations. Others can re-homestead that land.
Okay, makes sense.
CrazyCoot: How do you address the fact that most property that has been acquired in the US, and elsewhere in the World, was at one time appropriated through force and fraud. I'm referring to cases where there is no clear legal title. For example Ignoc the cave man has a plot of land. He has his plot taken from him by Aploc the farmer. Aploc the farmer sells his land to the next guy and this goes on, through either intrafamilial gifts or sale, for numerous generations. Then the land is taken again by force and is held in the same family for a few generations. It is then sold. How does the Lockeian/Rothbardian theory of property rights address such an issue? I bring up this issue because they had a discussion regarding geolibertarianism on the Liberty Conspiracy with Gardner Goldsmith. While I don't believe in the idea of common ownership of land for practical reasons, the tragedy of the commons for example, I find it hard to totally discount the idea that the concept of homesteading only works as a moral approach in the abstract. I can't think of a piece of land that definitely has not been acquired or improved through force or fraud at least one point in its history. Is there a statute of limitations on restitution and responsibility? Do people believe on this board believe the idea of homesteading to be a realistic concept or a convenient shorthand? Thoughts, comments, and related issues appreciated.
Rothbard talks about this very issue somewhere (sorry, can't remember where, but I'm guessing Ethics of Liberty since I know that book best). Basically, he says we should consider all current titles as valid pending reasonable claims against them. Such claims could be tried in a court of law (though without a free market in law, don't expect anything to change, we have all these bad titles exactly because of the enabling of State courts). Of course, a great deal of property has been stolen and a great number of dead people have been murdered, wronged, etc. But life goes on and the only reasonable way to do address past wrongs is to follow the principle of presumption of rightful possession. Let individuals bring suit against those who have (provably) wronged them or whose property or that of their ancestors was (provably) stolen.
Clayton -
Esuric: CrazyCoot:But do you really buy into the concept that most land was not taken through force and fraud at one point in time? Okay, but what's your point exactly? What are you suggesting? That all property is theft because at one point, long ago, some one forcefully took it from someone else? What does that have to do with me? Aquila:Is it just me or is there a certain moral hazard to this legal code? It seems to offer perverse incentives such that, should one slaughter the original owner of a piece of land and all identifiable descendants, he may then justly re-homestead said land as his own. How did you reach this absurd conclusion? Slaughtering someone clearly violates the NAP.
No, I don't believe that property is inherently theft. It is conceivable that a piece of land was transferred over the ages without an act of violence. So no, in and of itself property is not theft.
Hoppe wrote an essay on the four premises underlying natural property rights, and after reading it once a few years ago, I have not been able to find it again. It was a brilliant analysis and I'd love to find it.