Let's just say I randomly find a brand new continent (or planet, or whatever large, unclaimed area you choose). What are the limits to my homesteading it? Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just marking a map? I anticipate somebody saying "homesteading is applying labor to some unused portion of land," but who's to say whether I'm using it or not, right? Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years? If it's really mine, it shouldn't matter what I do with it, but then what's to stop somebody from claiming, say, the moon, just in case his descendents ever want it? Is it like calling shotgun: you have to be close to it to call it?
Is there somewhere where this question is treated a little more thoroughly? And yes I recognize how impractical these questions are; just curious.
Strictly speaking, land isn't produced by anyone -- unless it's reclaimed from the sea, as in the Netherlands.
Strictly speaking then land cannot be owned.
Economically, land is not part of the economy until someone finds it, and why would anyone go looking for it if he does not own the product of his search?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Strictly speaking then land cannot be owned.
Strictly speaking, then, snozzberries on Alpha Centauri II can't be owned, either.
Stranger:Economically, land is not part of the economy until someone finds it, and why would anyone go looking for it if he does not own the product of his search?
How is searching production?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
It is completely a matter of local customs. There is no use or need to armchair this. Law is not something that springs ex nihilo from the brow of Rothbardians.
Ricky James Moore II: It is completely a matter of local customs. There is no use or need to armchair this. Law is not something that springs ex nihilo from the brow of Rothbardians.
Law is custom based on schools of thought. If libertarian schools of thought are not fully developed, we will have no right to complain when our thought is not represented. I intend to have the right to complain.
No. Procedural and dispensational elements of law are, sometimes, based on theory. But the substantive and practiced elements - such as property boundaries, norms and defaults for contract re-negotiation, payment standards for tort punishments, etc. are a product of customary and professional action; generally derived from whatever is acceptable to the parties involved. This armchairing is bizarre and pointless. I seriously recommend reading more about legal theory and history, for example Lon L. Fuller, before attempting going forward with this a priori nonsense.
Stephan Kinsella holds similar views to me on this, as does essentially everyone who has actually studied customary law. This is a serious weakness in the libertarian movement, and stems from the same kind of misguided absolutism that makes people fear the market in security because we can not name specifics of how private protection will be generated. We do not need to, nor would it be desirable for there to be 'one law'. There will be multiple laws and norms which reflect the interests and agreements of the people involved. Trying to dictate how many hectares you can homestead by dropping salt from a helicopter is ludicrous.
Ricky James Moore II:No. Procedural and dispensational elements of law are, sometimes, based on theory. But the substantive and practiced elements - such as property boundaries, norms and defaults for contract re-negotiation, payment standards for tort punishments, etc. are a product of customary and professional action; generally derived from whatever is acceptable to the parties involved. This armchairing is bizarre and pointless. I seriously recommend reading more about legal theory and history, for example Lon L. Fuller, before attempting going forward with this a priori nonsense. Stephan Kinsella holds similar views to me on this, as does essentially everyone who has actually studied customary law. This is a serious weakness in the libertarian movement, and stems from the same kind of misguided absolutism that makes people fear the market in security because we can not name specifics of how private protection will be generated. We do not need to, nor would it be desirable for there to be 'one law'. There will be multiple laws and norms which reflect the interests and agreements of the people involved. Trying to dictate how many hectares you can homestead by dropping salt from a helicopter is ludicrous.
I think you misunderstand the point of this thread. As far as I can tell, we're not trying to "legislate from the recliner" -- rather, we're investigating the logical extent of the homesteading principle. What's wrong with this? I'd say it's important to find out which definitions of "homesteading" do not conflict with other libertarian principles. So it's really a philosophical discussion we're having, if that makes sense.
I have studied customary law. From what I understand, common-law jurists typically appeal to general or universal principles as much as possible. This actually maximizes efficiency -- it's easier to decide cases based on established general/universal principles than to take each case ex nihilo.
It is completely a matter of local customs. There is no use or need to armchair this.
This. And this can not be stressed enough. The sooner this concept is realized the better.
William:It is completely a matter of local customs. There is no use or need to armchair this. This. And this can not be stressed enough. The sooner this concept is realized the better. Somehow, I don't think simply hand-waving and saying "The market will take care of it!" is going to be satisfying to most noobs. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 35
Somehow, I don't think simply hand-waving and saying "The market will take care of it!" is going to be satisfying to most noobs.
Somehow, I don't think simply hand-waving and saying "The market will take care of it!" is going to satisfying to most noobs.
It's not 'hand-waving'. That's how law works. They're trying to think of it as though they are Congress. That's not how free market customary law works. If they don't like that answer - that's too bad. The question they are asking can not be answered; it's meaningless. It is at least as absurd as asking, "who will produce cars without the Soviet State? And how many seats will they have?" An understanding of professional law and customary law is not to be gained by reading Rothbard; as nice of a background as that may be for general principles it is useless for substantive claims. There are no a priori principles of boundaries or restitution claims. There are many authors - Anthony de Jasay, Lon L. Fuller, etc. who provide insightful analysis of legal proceduralism and customary norms but it can not be emphasized enough that it is insane to attempt to decide the substantive content. One of the advantages of customary, private law is that it reflects what is acceptable to the people involved. And that is not something you can predict without actually letting the legal market operate.
Speculating about this ahead of time allows people to operate with some degree of certainty without having to wait for a court case to decide things.
This kind of armchair speculation is not useful for that purpose. The people on the ground can usually find norms without ever going to court for it. How often do you have to check your property maps at the county register to decide where your lawn starts and your neighbors begin? The aribters are only there for marginal cases; property bounds, like contracts, are largely self-enforcing.
Ricky James Moore II:But the substantive and practiced elements - such as property boundaries, norms and defaults for contract re-negotiation, payment standards for tort punishments, etc. are a product of customary and professional action; generally derived from whatever is acceptable to the parties involved.
The whole scenario is predicated on the premise that there is a disagreement between the parties; if they both agreed on an acceptable resolution, there would be no need to involve an adjudicator in the first place.
There is an initial disagreement at the margins. But there is large agreement at the core, which is proven by the fact that they are able to organize and exist in civil society. Thus when they refer to an arbitration agency it is an appeal for a more refined sense of these margins as well as contractual defaults. For anyone who just 'needed' to have it written in stone they could simply bond themselves to an arbitration agency with fairly strictly stipulated standards and practices.
Ricky James Moore II:It's not 'hand-waving'. That's how law works. They're trying to think of it as though they are Congress. That's not how free market customary law works. If they don't like that answer - that's too bad. The question they are asking can not be answered; it's meaningless. It is at least as absurd as asking, "who will produce cars without the Soviet State? And how many seats will they have?" An understanding of professional law and customary law is not to be gained by reading Rothbard; as nice of a background as that may be for general principles it is useless for substantive claims. There are no a priori principles of boundaries or restitution claims. There are many authors - Anthony de Jasay, Lon L. Fuller, etc. who provide insightful analysis of legal proceduralism and customary norms but it can not be emphasized enough that it is insane to attempt to decide the substantive content. One of the advantages of customary, private law is that it reflects what is acceptable to the people involved. And that is not something you can predict without actually letting the legal market operate.
I really don't see how the OP in this thread is trying to think of free-market customary law as though it's Congress. Nor do I see how the question asked can't be answered or is meaningless.
Where you say that "there are no a priori principles of boundaries or restitution claims", it seems you mean that no one is prima facie obligated to follow any particular principles. You're right about that. However, that doesn't mean that a priori principles can't be posited and discussed. The heart of libertarianism is all about principles -- the Non-Aggression Principle, the Homesteading Principle, etc.
Am I supposed to be intimidated when you say that "it is insane to attempt to decide the substantive content" (more accurately "speculate on the substantive content")? If so, then I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not.