http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2010/02/explaining-anti-authoritarianisms.html
Thoughts?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
There are some things I like about Brainpolice's comments but how can someone be committing aggression against someone who comes onto their property? How can one have the ability of what comes on and what comes off their property but not have 'ultimate decision making'? Isn't the ability to dictate the environment a sense of ultimate decision making? The ability to leave a group is the most powerful example of control.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
brainpolice thinks that guests should have the run of the house...
so much for private property.....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: brainpolice thinks that guests should have the run of the house... so much for private property.....
Well that's what confuses me. We can dictate who comes on and who comes off our property but saying what needs to happen while on our property is aggression? Wouldn't a loophole be openly stating what needs to happen to the visitor before they come onto your property and if you don't get a form of approval then you disallow them from entering? Perhaps BP is trying to use something like positive benevolence in a non-violent manner. Like saying it is reprehensible to dictate harsh conditions of what happens on your property but it is not unjust.
Most people are confused about what property rights means. Under the homesteading theory, you have the right to the fruits of your labor. So if I farm land I have the right to the crops. This gives me NO rights against people who don't interfere with my homesteading. So, people could walk across the land so long as they didn't interfere with your homesteading activities. You don't *own* the land. You own the rights to your labor, which is mixed with an aspect of the land.
Contrast this with the state conception of property rights which says that you can own all aspects of a geographic region. Probably stems from the fact that the state feels the same way about the territory it claims...
Anyway, so with respect to living quarters, you've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living, and you have a right to maintain that. So its reasonable that you can eject guests if they interfere with your peace of mind. It is unreasonable to object to say, radio waves, passing through your house, unless they interfered with your homesteading.
Andrew Cain:Well that's what confuses me.
good luck trying to get brainpolice to address counter-arguments... http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/14448/304945.aspx
Snowflake: Most people are confused about what property rights means. Under the homesteading theory, you have the right to the fruits of your labor. So if I farm land I have the right to the crops. This gives me NO rights against people who don't interfere with my homesteading. So, people could walk across the land so long as they didn't interfere with your homesteading activities. You don't *own* the land. You own the rights to your labor, which is mixed with an aspect of the land. Contrast this with the state conception of property rights which says that you can own all aspects of a geographic region. Probably stems from the fact that the state feels the same way about the territory it claims...
You said something similar here and Conza responded:
Conza88: Snowflake: When you homestead land, you don't own it. You only own the rights to continue homesteading it uninterrupted. So, if you were farming land, and I need to walk across it, I don't need your permission to so long as me doing so doesn't hurt your crops Bogus. I can walk across your lawn, as long as I don't hurt the grass. I can walk into your living room, as long as I don't scrape the floor boards.
Snowflake: When you homestead land, you don't own it. You only own the rights to continue homesteading it uninterrupted. So, if you were farming land, and I need to walk across it, I don't need your permission to so long as me doing so doesn't hurt your crops
When you homestead land, you don't own it. You only own the rights to continue homesteading it uninterrupted. So, if you were farming land, and I need to walk across it, I don't need your permission to so long as me doing so doesn't hurt your crops
Bogus.
I can walk across your lawn, as long as I don't hurt the grass.
I can walk into your living room, as long as I don't scrape the floor boards.
Although you did not respond in that thread, you are offering a solution to his second analogy:
Snowflake: Anyway, so with respect to living quarters, you've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living, and you have a right to maintain that. So its reasonable that you can eject guests if they interfere with your peace of mind. It is unreasonable to object to say, radio waves, passing through your house, unless they interfered with your homesteading.
How does a person "homestead[...] peace of mind"? What if I were to both plant crops in a field but also lie in the field constantly? Would I then gain the "right" to eject people from it?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
thanks for the article, I think I agree with him here.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
It has been claimed (incorrectly, I think) that the JNF, using freely given donations, bought all the land that is currently Israel, and ceded it to the Israeli government. If BP's comments were taken to be false, and we held to an absolutist private property position, and if this claim were true, then it would follow that any action, no matter how tyrannical, taken by the Israeli government, was unobjectionable on libertarian grounds.
It could be objected that this wouldn't apply to emigration - that one thing the government could not do would be to prevent people from leaving. Even if taken without argument, this isn't much. People can only leave by getting to the border, and if you build a fence around their house, they can't get to the border. You can lock them in camps and shoot them if they leave, saying "this whole area is mine, and one of my rules, admittedly, quite arbitrary, is that you are not allowed to leave that perimter, and if you do, I can shoot you. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have come in. What, I should have warned you ahead of time? I did. You knew when you came in that there was a group of a couple hundred people who can vote for such things, and have done so before."
By the way, what if I own a plane? Is it true that if you come on my plane, I can do as I like with you, so long as I don't prevent you from leaving - but surely I'm not required to actively help you leave, say, by giving you a parachute?
Andrew Cain:how can someone be committing aggression against someone who comes onto their property?
According to the Principle of Proportionality, the use of defensive coercion must not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the aggression. For example, if you accidentally step on my property and I shoot you for trespassing, my actions would be disproportionate and hence I would actually be aggressing against you.
Our rights don't disappear the moment we step on someone else's property.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
JAlanKatz: It has been claimed (incorrectly, I think) that the JNF, using freely given donations, bought all the land that is currently Israel, and ceded it to the Israeli government. If BP's comments were taken to be false, and we held to an absolutist private property position, and if this claim were true, then it would follow that any action, no matter how tyrannical, taken by the Israeli government, was unobjectionable on libertarian grounds.
nirgrahamUK: Andrew Cain:Well that's what confuses me. good luck trying to get brainpolice to address counter-arguments... http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/14448/304945.aspx
Everyone of his posts should have an obligatory tl;dr summary at the beginning, but I would advise this for any long blog post, though, as it helps ensure your readers don't just skim half-way, say screw it, & start arguing in the comments instead. Doing so would make his text less thick (ba dum bum) to read, more to the point, & inform the reader the main point ahead of time. I admit that these are preferences, however, so to each their own I guess. Also this (w/ bonus spell-check):
Are the problems with a reductionism to the NAP and property rights not the whole reason for having "thick libertarianism" in the first place? From my point of view, I'm only making (or extending on) a "thick libertarian" case against Rothbard. The "extra-rothbardian" concepts that I am bringing in, to open and expand libertarianism, is a robust anti-authoritarianism as I have conceived of it. The Rothbardian position by itself (and, to a lesser extent, the left-rothbardian position, although not altogether exempt from criticism) is in tension with these "thick" considerations. And this is not based on a strawman. The response that Rothbardianism does not condone shooting trespassers and bubble-gum thiefs is only a perpetuation of the very fixation on physical aggression that I am criticizing, which misses the point. Even with proportionality principles in place, absolute land property rights is a constraint on the freedom of other people, and because of such considerations I'm suggesting that a robust sense of personal freedom is a constraint on land property rights.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Snowflake: Most people are confused about what property rights means. Under the homesteading theory, you have the right to the fruits of your labor. So if I farm land I have the right to the crops. This gives me NO rights against people who don't interfere with my homesteading. So, people could walk across the land so long as they didn't interfere with your homesteading activities. You don't *own* the land. You own the rights to your labor, which is mixed with an aspect of the land. Anyway, so with respect to living quarters, you've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living, and you have a right to maintain that. So its reasonable that you can eject guests if they interfere with your peace of mind. It is unreasonable to object to say, radio waves, passing through your house, unless they interfered with your homesteading.
That is probably true in the philosophical sense, but it doesn't have an application in practice.All I need to do is plant land mines in my corn field and presto: I have homesteaded the field for my peace of mind as well as for my corn planting.
Sage: According to the Principle of Proportionality, the use of defensive coercion must not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the aggression. For example, if you accidentally step on my property and I shoot you for trespassing, my actions would be disproportionate and hence I would actually be aggressing against you.
Proportionality has to do with punishment not with defence. A very mild form of occupation is scarcely different from a form of trespassing - jet few would claim that it is wrong or immoral of an occupied people to resists an occupation in a guerilla style war and shoot at the occupiers. Shooting at a trespasser is perfectly OK, but only when this is the only way to stop his aggression. So the example of the accidental trespasser fails. His aggression can be stopped by simply making it known to him that he is trespassing.
Marko:Shooting at a trespasser is perfectly OK, but only when this is the only way to stop his aggression. So the example of the accidental trespasser fails. His aggression can be stopped by simply making it known to him that he is trespassing.
After reading Nitro's post I'm not going to read BP's blog. It sounds like a similar BP position that I've argued with him, though I think BP at least recognizes ethics, in other words, there is actually an act between individuals called conflict of scarcity which he doesn't ignore so I applaud him for that. Yet as of the last time I've argued with BP I still don't think he understands that the natural law tradition completely acknowledges the declarative proposition that property includes the person, not exclusively tangible goods external to the person. What Marko says here is what any sensible individual would do. To simply cap somebody because they crossed into somebody's yard wouldn't make sense especially in light when the yard owner could yell out to the person that this indeed is their yard and they would appreciate it if the person left. Of course if the property owner had the time to do this. If they don't leave, then of course I wouldn't think the person is simply passing through. I would feel threatened and feel that the intruder has a hidden motive. I can't know what that motive is that is in their mind, but they are not acknowledging the piece of yard that I've become comfortable knowing to be mine. They are not recognizing it as mine. They are not leaving. What else do they not recognize as mine? Maybe they don't recognize that I deserve to live? I wouldn't sit around and wonder my whole life away until it is too late to find out.
just build a fence and there will be no trespassing
Sage: According to the Principle of Proportionality, the use of defensive coercion must not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the aggression. For example, if you accidentally step on my property and I shoot you for trespassing, my actions would be disproportionate and hence I would actually be aggressing against you. Our rights don't disappear the moment we step on someone else's property.
then how would you answer to this with your PoP?
Quoting from brainpolice's blog:
There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is.
in my mind person and property are one domain. stumbling into someones yard is comparable to stumbling into someone vagina. the difference is the degree. of course a graceful person would presume innocence and ask the person to leave.
"Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is."
im sick of LL's sophistry. its his fucking property. you can't define some arbitrary standards of niceness one has to follow. if you think that im such a meany for requiring you to do irrational things, don't associate with me. period.
MaikU:Quoting from brainpolice's blog: There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is.
I always wonder who is BP arguing against when he comes up with stuff like that.
do people realize that one could make anti-libertarian arguments by using this logic. you cannot hire a janitor, because its an "oppressive, mean relationship". on these grounds i could send people into re-education camps for being nasty to their fellow men.
MaikU: Sage: According to the Principle of Proportionality, the use of defensive coercion must not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the aggression. For example, if you accidentally step on my property and I shoot you for trespassing, my actions would be disproportionate and hence I would actually be aggressing against you. Our rights don't disappear the moment we step on someone else's property. then how would you answer to this with your PoP? Quoting from brainpolice's blog: There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is.
That's another tidbit that I didn't quite understand. What makes anyone in their right mind think this is a realistic example? It would be recognizable that this absurd rule is what it is: an absurd rule that could not possibly be enforced without coercion, let alone without looking outright silly. In a given community (yes, yes, I'm sorry but it's quite realistic that we might still desire to live in communities & not all by our lonesome) even in a stateless society, it is very unlikely that people would put these types of "unsaid" or "fine print" rules, because they would serve nothing but to drive the community apart into atomized segments constantly distrusting one another, possibly resulting into disputes or war with one another. Not everyone is a responsible person, just as how not everyone is irresponsible, intelligent, caring, evil, sadistic, authoritarian & other adjectives & so forth.
garegin: in my mind person and property are one domain. stumbling into someones yard is comparable to stumbling into someone vagina. the difference is the degree. of course a graceful person would presume innocence and ask the person to leave. "Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is." im sick of LL's sophistry. its his fucking property. you can't define some arbitrary standards of niceness one has to follow. if you think that im such a meany for requiring you to do irrational things, don't associate with me. period.
This, bolded.
There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is. If "property rights" in land means that the owner has "ultimate decision-making power" of this sort, then "property rights" can, in principle, justify authoritarianism. Absolute property rights in land thus essentially translates to "you must obey what the owner tells you to do or leave". What, pray tell, happens if one does not leave? It seems to me that either property rights are inherently constrained in favor of human dignity, or the owner is justified in initiating force to get you to leave for not obeying their rules.
There a disconnect between the bolded part and the non-bolded part.
It is one thing to say: "You must obey what the owner tells you to do or leave."
It is another thing to say: "If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me." Notice that in one case a clause "or you must leave" is present and in the other it is not present. This makes for a world of difference. If one is wrong, it does not necessarily follow that the other is wrong as well.
"You must obey what the owner tells you to do or leave" is exactly right. There is nothing wrong with this. Also there would be nothing wrong with a rule that would similarly say: "If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me, or you must leave." The owner sets the price of admission to his property. He is free to set any price he wishes too.Simply saying "If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me" (ie regardless of whether you were aware of this rule and regardless of whether you left, or were willing to leave once you learned of it) on the other hand can not be supported by libertarian ethics. But Rothbard tackles this when he talks about contracts already. He explains that a contract is not a contract unless "a meeting of the minds" has taken place. So it is by no means necessary to undermine property rights in order to be able to offer a solution to this 'fine print problem'.
Unless of course the solving of this problem is a means rather than an end.
Marko:Proportionality has to do with punishment not with defence. A very mild form of occupation is scarcely different from a form of trespassing - jet few would claim that it is wrong or immoral of an occupied people to resists an occupation in a guerilla style war and shoot at the occupiers. Shooting at a trespasser is perfectly OK, but only when this is the only way to stop his aggression. So the example of the accidental trespasser fails. His aggression can be stopped by simply making it known to him that he is trespassing.
I don't see how any of this counts as an objection to the proportionality theory. Did you read the Long article I linked?
MaikU:then how would you answer to this with your PoP? Quoting from brainpolice's blog: There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is.
I would argue that such rules, as stated, would count as aggression. For example, if the person was unaware of the rules and wasn't given a chance to leave, enforcing those rules would be aggression. Furthermore, even it these rules weren't aggressive, I think that on thickness grounds, libertarians qua libertarians would have good reason to oppose them.
garegin:im sick of LL's sophistry. its his fucking property. you can't define some arbitrary standards of niceness one has to follow. if you think that im such a meany for requiring you to do irrational things, don't associate with me. period.
Yeah, who needs reasoned debate?
Sage: I don't see how any of this counts as an objection to the proportionality theory.
I don't see how any of this counts as an objection to the proportionality theory.
I didn't question the theory. I questioned the way you were using it.
Sage:Yeah, who needs reasoned debate?
they are making aesthetic judgments that, while having merit on their own, are not relevant to law. do i find being mean abhorrent? you bet. should being irrational crank be legally banned, no.
Sage:I would argue that such rules, as stated, would count as aggression. For example, if the person was unaware of the rules and wasn't given a chance to leave,
You mean held hostage violating his, the person not given a chance to leave, property rights.
Marko just reiterated this point and you appear to completely (a) glance over it (b) not understand what that means, or is there possibly a (c).
It's no wonder Congress has to write legislation 1000's of pages long when the laws are already in the books. They don't know that the pre-existing laws already exist and cover the issue. If Congress had excess to this forum they would reiterate a closed debate with a new thread and some imagined new twist to the same topic every other day. That's my hypothetical assumption.
wilderness: MaikU:Quoting from brainpolice's blog: There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is. I always wonder who is BP arguing against when he comes up with stuff like that.
Not who, but what. Quoting from BP's blog:
In short, there is a contradiction between the absolute nature of the property right and the limit on aggression. The propertarian thus faces a moral dillema between upholding the absolute nature of land property rights and upholding the opposition to initiating force.
MaikU: Quoting from brainpolice's blog: There is nothing about the proportionality principle that constrains a land owner from setting up an absurd rule such as "if you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me". Is this, in and of itself, physically aggressive? No, it isn't. Is it authoritarian? Yes, it is.
He's way off (as usual).
First, "If you do this, then you must do that" is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, "If you do this, I'll do that," mutually agreed.
Also, law is about consequences. What is the consequence if someone comes on your land but doesn't submit to being a sex slave? They get kicked out! oh the horrors!
If the owner tries keep the visitor from leaving before having performed this sex obligation, he is a kidnapper. (Duh)
Peace
MaikU:just build a fence and there will be no trespassing
So if I don't build a fence then who's going to trespass?
MaikU:Not who, but what. Quoting from BP's blog: In short, there is a contradiction between the absolute nature of the property right and the limit on aggression. The propertarian thus faces a moral dillema between upholding the absolute nature of land property rights and upholding the opposition to initiating force.
Again, I wonder who BP is referring to when he comes up with stuff like that.
lets consider another scenario. person A and person B consent to a sex act. while making out person A says that person B has to bang his head against the wall or take a hike.
Snowflake:Anyway, so with respect to living quarters, you've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living, and you have a right to maintain that. So its reasonable that you can eject guests if they interfere with your peace of mind. It is unreasonable to object to say, radio waves, passing through your house, unless they interfered with your homesteading.
Absolutely absurd. Property is physical. "You've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living" - lmao. Not physical, thus inapplicable. Do you support IP as well? No? Then you're being inconsistent.
You have a right to set forth rules on the use of your property. You (/ builders) homesteaded the land & the house. You don't own the other persons body though, if they are on your land.
"Libertarians apply similar reasoning in the case of other scarce resources — namely, external objects in the world that, unlike bodies, were at one point unowned. In the case of bodies, the idea of aggression being impermissible immediately implies self-ownership. In the case of external objects, however, we must identify who the owner is before we can determine what constitutes aggression."
They can either accept your rules and voluntarily stay, or reject them and thus leave. If they don't leave, then they can justifiably be evicted - as the are trespassing. (committing aggression). They would naturally be evicted as peacefully as possible, unless they resist etc. Seriously, go to a bar or club if someone breaks property owners rules, i.e abusing others, fighting - they are escorted out. If they don't resist, then they largely go peacefully.. if they do, the necessary force (proportional) is naturally used to get them out, off the premises.
What is with these delusional and fantastical scenario's, that go along the lines of - "you're a guest at a persons house, sitting down for dinner. He asks you to leave. He says you have 10 seconds. You're stunned, and go wtf.. so he pulls out a gun and shoots you dead." I mean seriously, when has this ever happened? Not that it isn't possible, but these lifeboat scenarios are largely a joke, except not funny.
Furthermore, property owners (business ones) don't want you to leave, they want you to stay. It seems to me, in the BP analysis - this whole concept is missing.
Anyway, some things involve implicit contracts, i.e Walter Block example - someone can't evict you from their plane - at 10,000 feet..
I. Ryan:you are offering a solution to his second analogy
It's not a solution.
I. Ryan:How does a person "homestead[...] peace of mind"? What if I were to both plant crops in a field but also lie in the field constantly? Would I then gain the "right" to eject people from it?
Ah yes, good point. I made a similar argument.
Conza88:Absolutely absurd. Property is physical. "You've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living" - lmao. Not physical, thus inapplicable
Peaceful can be an attribute of a location. Just as, pollution free, can be.
JonBostwick: Conza88:Absolutely absurd. Property is physical. "You've homesteaded a peaceful domain for living" - lmao. Not physical, thus inapplicable Peaceful can be an attribute of a location. Just as, pollution free, can be.
You planning on getting into easements? So what - "peaceful" is subjective and thus useless. I find rage against the machine to be "peaceful" () and someone else considers it noise pollution.
The above comment stands.
A very good point that I failed to realize. Thanks for bringing that up.
JonBostwick: First, "If you do this, then you must do that" is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, "If you do this, I'll do that," mutually agreed.
That is a great point. But what he wrote could be easily rewritten as "I allow you to set foot on my land if you..."
What I gather from BP's position is the following.
1) NAP by itself makes no sense (and no non-thick libertarian would say otherwise: see shooting the bubblegum thief thread for evidence).
2) Land ownership is contingent on whether or not others have the alternative to avoid that land (Basically, no absolute private territory where land is very scarce like an island. To me this is a no brainer and often what would happen in such a situation is that the island's land would be owned in trust to a publicly traded company of sorts instead of directly owned by any one member of that society.).
3) Rights must have some normative component to them that can justify them (Maybe I'm not grasping this point of his or maybe I'm not getting it at all...Take what you will of it.).
Of the three proposals I agree with 1 & 2, but 3 may be not be necessary even for 'thick' libertarianism. But that's just me.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: 1) NAP by itself makes no sense (and no non-thick libertarian would say otherwise: see shooting the bubblegum thief thread for evidence).
Is a 'no non-thick libertarian' something like a 'no true Scotsman'?
There is nothing wrong with saying if you come onto my land, you have to have sex with me. I own the land, if you step on to it, there is one of two options. You remain and follow my rules, or at my option, I can force you off of my land.
Onto this ownership of land. Let's say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple's. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven't yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don't interfere with the physical interactions I've already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want's to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded.
As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
Sam Armstrong: Onto this ownership of land. Let's say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple's. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven't yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don't interfere with the physical interactions I've already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want's to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded. As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
Well, you'e certainly articulated a theory about ownership, and done a good job at it. But nothing here explains what makes such a theory correct, and most people, including most Lockeans, would hold that what you've claimed is positively immoral. Why should I think that your theory is correct?