This question is partly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so here it goes:Person A steals land from Person B, and Person A goes unpunished. Several decades later, Person A's son inherits the land from Person A. However, Person B's son claims tha the land belongs to him. How would a libertarian judge rule on this matter?
(Assuming Person A was the legitimate owner prior to Person A's theft), hopefully that Person B's son is right.
Paul: (Assuming Person A was the legitimate owner prior to Person A's theft), hopefully that Person B's son is right.
Since I'm not sure about the answer to the question (hence why I asked it), I'll play devil's advocate: Since Person A's son did not commit the theft, wouldn't it be wrong for Person B's son to take that property away from him?
shazam:This question is partly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so here it goes:Person A steals land from Person B, and Person A goes unpunished. Several decades later, Person A's son inherits the land from Person A. However, Person B's son claims tha the land belongs to him. How would a libertarian judge rule on this matter?
In general, and in terms of property, you would be hard-pressed to find any piece of owned property whose current chain of ownership via otherwise legitimate means actually started out that way. People conquered and re-conquered their way across countries and continents. I'm not sure what the answer is for this, but it is something that needs further consideration.
However, I don't think the Israeli/Palestinian problem is really the same problem, at least in terms of the conflict that continually burdens the news. No, this is a case of nationalism and ethnocentrism. When the UN declared the Israeli state, a repellent and explicitly ethnocentric thing, against the wishes of the majority living there, even with the recent waves of Jewish immigration, the Palestinians and all the peoples surrounding were rightly outraged. The governments of Europe, once again, were treating the brown people of the Middle East as subhumans scarce worthy of consideration. This outrage is still, though just barely, in living memory.
Still, now, there have been several generations of those who call themselves Israelis born in the lands of Palestine, and who are we or anyone to tell them that they must be rendered landless because their ancestors committed a crime? Then again, who are we to tell the descendants of dispossessed Palestinians that they can never retrieve what was stolen from them and their ancestors?
The trick is, we need do neither. If there were no Israel, that doesn't mean we'd have to push out all the people who live there into the sea. There just wouldn't be a state called Israel. This conflict is less about property rights than two nationalistic viewpoints butting heads, one of which has almost all the power. Remove the nationalism, and you remove the problems. It really isn't about where a person buys his land over there, its how he identifies himself, whose territory he thinks he lives in. The simple and true answer, and the one that will end the conflict, is that that little patch of land is his own territory, and no one else's.
shazam:This question is partly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
It's not really very related. Just like the Native American land issue in the US, the premise it is based on is collectivized ownership. Since there is no such thing, the questions are moot. Property ownership is individual.
If an individual claim of ownership can be established, even if it is intergenerational, just like any tangible property, it is the property of the original legitimate owner. I doubt there's any way to establish who the original legitimate owner is in these cases, so it falls back to homesteading. In this, many Palestinians who were literally thrown off their land do have a legitimate claim to have at least individually homesteaded that land prior to the coming of the Isrealis.
The problem is that if you allow for no intergenerational attenuation of property rights claims even in the absence of explicit transfer of the rights claimed, and trace back the chain of implied rights claims backward indefinitely, you eventually (sooner rather than later in some cases) get to people who had no concept of property rights, nor even of individual property, and who occupied - or just claimed - territory, but never in fact individually homesteaded any specific piece of property.
If we're going to invoke a principle of property rights to restore possession to the rightful owners, it has to be applied equally to all the actors, past and present, who comprise the putative chain of ownership.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
shazam: Paul: (Assuming Person A was the legitimate owner prior to Person A's theft), hopefully that Person B's son is right. Since I'm not sure about the answer to the question (hence why I asked it), I'll play devil's advocate: Since Person A's son did not commit the theft, wouldn't it be wrong for Person B's son to take that property away from him?
Why would it? If Person A stole Person B's watch and immediately gave it to his son as a gift, would it be wrong to return it? Why does waiting a couple of decades and the thief's death make a difference?
JCFolsom: In general, and in terms of property, you would be hard-pressed to find any piece of owned property whose current chain of ownership via otherwise legitimate means actually started out that way. People conquered and re-conquered their way across countries and continents. I'm not sure what the answer is for this, but it is something that needs further consideration.
It really isn't relevant. Either there's a clear owner or heir whose property it is, or there isn't. If there isn't, it's res nullius and can be homesteaded - which is already done by the current owner if he did no wrong - then he is the rightful owner.
Hmm I'd agree. In this case, the donor would have to compensate the person whom they gifted (say for instance the son built a skyscraper on this stolen land, and now has to tear it down - the thief is the one liable.) On the other hand, say a few centuries pass after the theft.. and out of the blue comes the heir of the legitimate owner. Would they have much of a claim? Given a huge passage of time and potential developments of the property, it's hard to answer in the affirmative.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
shazam: This question is partly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so here it goes:Person A steals land from Person B, and Person A goes unpunished. Several decades later, Person A's son inherits the land from Person A. However, Person B's son claims tha the land belongs to him. How would a libertarian judge rule on this matter?
I don't buy into the "all the land in the world is stolen" rhetoric. But in these cases, I say the land must be returned.
If their was a specific descendant that would make the validity of returning the property unquestionable. But even where direct heredity can not be determined I think property could be handed over.
However, I don't think the descendants should get a clear title. They may own the land, but not necessarily the improvements made to it. Rather, the descendents have the right to buy the property for the value of the improvements. If they chose to not buy it, they are entitled to receive payment for the value of the actual land.
But this leaves with the problem of determining property value, should we use property value of when it was stolen or of today? I don't see why Native Americans should be paid today's high urban land values, for example.
Peace
Paul: It really isn't relevant. Either there's a clear owner or heir whose property it is, or there isn't. If there isn't, it's res nullius and can be homesteaded - which is already done by the current owner if he did no wrong - then he is the rightful owner.
Exactly.
JCFolsom:In general, and in terms of property, you would be hard-pressed to find any piece of owned property whose current chain of ownership via otherwise legitimate means actually started out that way.
Much of the continental USA would fall into that. Native Americans only actually owned a small portion of the country, the rest was available to be homesteaded.
Where I sit right now was stolen from neither Indian nor Spaniard.
Jon Irenicus: Hmm I'd agree. In this case, the donor would have to compensate the person whom they gifted (say for instance the son built a skyscraper on this stolen land, and now has to tear it down - the thief is the one liable.)
Hmm I'd agree. In this case, the donor would have to compensate the person whom they gifted (say for instance the son built a skyscraper on this stolen land, and now has to tear it down - the thief is the one liable.)
If he didn't know the land he built on was stolen, I'd say the two owners (of the building and of the land) just have to sort it out between them; the building doesn't have to be torn down - either the building-owner will buy or rent the land, or the land-owner will buy or rent the building or whatever...(or they won't agree and both will block each other's access to their respective properties, making it worthless to both of them, so they have good incentive to reach a mutually-agreeable settlement)
Jon Irenicus: On the other hand, say a few centuries pass after the theft.. and out of the blue comes the heir of the legitimate owner. Would they have much of a claim? Given a huge passage of time and potential developments of the property, it's hard to answer in the affirmative.
On the other hand, say a few centuries pass after the theft.. and out of the blue comes the heir of the legitimate owner. Would they have much of a claim? Given a huge passage of time and potential developments of the property, it's hard to answer in the affirmative.
That's easily solved by the issue of abandonment: if there's no ongoing dispute over the ownership (i.e., the legitimate owner isn't claiming it any more), after some period of time (arbitrary; needs to be decided by courts, etc., but certainly "a few centuries" is more than sufficient), it's considered abandoned and can be homesteaded again; since it's no longer owned by the previous owner at that point, it can't be passed down to the heir of his heir of his heir and so on who pops up a few centuries later. So no, he has no claim.
Another point to consider here is that a person need not leave a piece of property to his or her offspring. Just because most do, does not make it inevitable. Given that we do not know whether the owner would have, in fact given it to their children had they not been dispossessed, we cannot establish that the descendant has any right to the land.
JonBostwick: However, I don't think the descendants should get a clear title. They may own the land, but not necessarily the improvements made to it. Rather, the descendents have the right to buy the property for the value of the improvements. If they chose to not buy it, they are entitled to receive payment for the value of the actual land. But this leaves with the problem of determining property value, should we use property value of when it was stolen or of today? I don't see why Native Americans should be paid today's high urban land values, for example.
I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions. The current owner has the right to remove or destroy any additions, but the new additions don`t impose any new debts upon the legitimate owner. With regard to value, no one owns the value of property, only its physical integrity and physical control over it.
JCFolsom:Still, now, there have been several generations of those who call themselves Israelis born in the lands of Palestine, and who are we or anyone to tell them that they must be rendered landless because their ancestors committed a crime? Then again, who are we to tell the descendants of dispossessed Palestinians that they can never retrieve what was stolen from them and their ancestors?
The issue is not whether their ancestors commited a crime. The issue is whether or not they are the legitimate owners of the property they currently occupy. If it belongs to someone else, they should hand it over.
When you say that the issue is not about land but about nationalism and ethnocentrism, you ignore the possibility that it is about both. Humans can only come into conflict over scarce resources. The history of the modern Israelli state is the history of one big nationalistic land grab. And this is the single largest factor behind anti-Israelli sentiment in the Arab world. The best solution to the conflict is to allow the right of return to Palestinians and their descendents who have being ejected from their land.
Stephen Forde:I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions.
Ill check it out.
Stephen Forde: The issue is not whether their ancestors committed a crime. The issue is whether or not they are the legitimate owners of the property they currently occupy. If it belongs to someone else, they should hand it over. When you say that the issue is not about land but about nationalism and ethnocentrism, you ignore the possibility that it is about both. Humans can only come into conflict over scarce resources. The history of the modern Israeli state is the history of one big nationalistic land grab. And this is the single largest factor behind anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world. The best solution to the conflict is to allow the right of return to Palestinians and their descendants who have being ejected from their land.
The issue is not whether their ancestors committed a crime. The issue is whether or not they are the legitimate owners of the property they currently occupy. If it belongs to someone else, they should hand it over.
When you say that the issue is not about land but about nationalism and ethnocentrism, you ignore the possibility that it is about both. Humans can only come into conflict over scarce resources. The history of the modern Israeli state is the history of one big nationalistic land grab. And this is the single largest factor behind anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world. The best solution to the conflict is to allow the right of return to Palestinians and their descendants who have being ejected from their land.
Where are they to go? If I was born here and my parents were born here, how is that fair? It is my homeland, now. There are no guarantees that, had my ancestor not stolen the land, that it would rightfully belong the descendants of those they stole it from anyway. They could have left it to someone else, or died in a plague or famine or something else. Why is one patch of land you have never set foot on better than another if both have the same value? How far back do you go?
Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I'm betting that you or someone you know have some ancestors that were dispossessed. Very sad, but also irrelevant. You cannot turn back time, and you cannot get back what was lost. Taking it back now just displaces someone new and innocent. And it's not as if these Palestinians didn't steal it from someone else back in the past.
What's done is done. Your ancestors, not you, were wronged. You did not necessarily lose anything. You might have gained! You may well not exist, and certainly wouldn't as you are, had your ancestors not been stolen from. I say only the directly wronged parties can regain stolen property during the lives of those who stole them. If the guilty or aggrieved parties die, the case dies with them.
JCFolsom:Where are they to go? If I was born here and my parents were born here, how is that fair? It is my homeland, now.
Appeal to sentiment. Irrelevant.
JCFolsom:There are no guarantees that, had my ancestor not stolen the land, that it would rightfully belong the descendants of those they stole it from anyway. They could have left it to someone else, or died in a plague or famine or something else.
Speculation. Irrelevant to the question of rights.
JCFolsom:Why is one patch of land you have never set foot on better than another if both have the same value? How far back do you go?
Why should some item purchased over the internet that you have never laid hands on better than another if both have the same value?
This question obviously has nothing to do with property rights.
JCFolsom:Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I'm betting that you or someone you know have some ancestors that were dispossessed.
You are wrong here. There are none that I know of.
JCFolsom:You cannot turn back time, and you cannot get back what was lost.
Sure you can. This is called repossession.
JCFolsom:Taking it back now just displaces someone new and innocent.
That is not all it does. It also restores rightful ownership.
JCFolsom:And it's not as if these Palestinians didn't steal it from someone else back in the past.
If it can be proven that any particular palestinian took the land illigitimately in the past, than it should be returned to the rightful owner. If the current status quo is unjust, it should be made just.
JCFolsom:What's done is done.
And can be undone.
JonBostwick: Stephen Forde:I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions. Ill check it out.
Similarly if Brown had stolen a parcel of land from Black, and sold it to Robinson, the criterion should again be the separability of any additions Robinson had made to the property. If, for example, Robinson had built some buildings on the property, then he should be able to move the buildings or demolish them before turning the land over to the original landowner, Black.
Pretty standard.
Obviously, if the criminal adds to the land then that belongs to the victim by accession. Pretty much all the Palestinian property would fall into this category, as the current owners are not market purchasers but privileged by the thief.
The case I was talking about was if the land was added to by an innocent third party.
I don't believe land ownership to be as straight forward as Rothbard suggests there. Justice is not serviced by merely returning the land. If I steal a car then scrap it, I can't simply return the metal and expect my debt be fulfilled. In this case I would owe my victim the value of what I stole, as returning his property would be impossible. The car no longer exists.
Lets say that my car is melted down and sold. This metal is used to build half of a person's house. Do I then, as owner of the car, have a 50% claim in this person's home? I don't believe I do. Even though the atoms are the same, the metal is no longer my car.
Ownership of land is not linked to the dirt, but the use of the land.
JCFolsom:Your ancestors, not you, were wronged.
True enough.
JCFolsom:You did not necessarily lose anything.
Except an inheritance.
JCFolsom:You might have gained!
Has nothing to do with the rightful distribution of property titles.
JCFolsom:You may well not exist, and certainly wouldn't as you are, had your ancestors not been stolen from.
Speculative. Again.
JCFolsom: I say only the directly wronged parties can regain stolen property during the lives of those who stole them. If the guilty or aggrieved parties die, the case dies with them.
Murderers should get off the hook? Their victims are dead. Obviously they can not revenge themselves or pursue restitution themselves.
Stephen Forde: JCFolsom:Your ancestors, not you, were wronged. True enough. JCFolsom:You did not necessarily lose anything. Except an inheritance.
The inheritance is what is speculative. Your parents are obligated to provide the dependency for which they were responsible. If someone kills your parents, they are obligated to you to provide for you as they would have been obligated. The obligation transfers. However, your parents were obligated to give you nothing after you reached adulthood, so if they're land is stolen between the time you become an adult and the time they die, you have lost nothing. You didn't own it. It wasn't yours, and you had no more right to it than anyone else. You are viewing genetic relationships as if they make you into some kind of a collective, like you somehow already owned part of what your parents might or might not have left you. You are wrong. You lose nothing you have a right to, and can make no claim to it in the future.
JCFolsom:The inheritance is what is speculative.
No. It is actual, or there is no issue to discuss. If a parent retains the right of something that was taken form his possession, and explicitly wills it to a child, that child has the same claim the parent had. The problem we get into is when the inheritance is implied, and in that case, I agree, the claim of the child is severely and possibly fatally weakened.
scineram:I think it is quite established that the descendants would be the heirs by default if there is no other indication, so they most certainly have a claim.
That's a legal construct based on tradition and custom. It's not grounds for a moral principle. Bequeathment is a purposeful action, it can't be assumed in a moral context, though it is legitimate for a legal system to use it as a default position in the absence of other substantive claims. What we are talking about here is most definitely not an absence of substantive competing claims.