The Legitimacy of State Property; Am I Really Entitled to My Land?

It is true that the state did not require its property justly, but is it not also true that almost no property in existence was part of an unbroken chain of voluntary transactions from the point the propeerty was originally taken out of nature and homesteaded? For instance, the land I live on in Arizona was probably taken from local natives by the Spanish, and then taken from the Spanish by the Americans. If this is true, do I legitimately own the title to my property? I obtained it from a voluntary transaction, but what if a long time ago the people who obtained the title got it using force? Am I really entitled to my property? If not, why is it that the state is not entitled to its property?

On a similar note, are there any good books that deal with the justness of property titles over long spans of time? I apologize if this is something I should already know from reading the basic literature.

Solid_Choke:

If this is true, do I legitimately own the title to my property?

Yes.  You've homesteaded it, or bought it from someone who did, or who... etc, etc,

Solid_Choke:

I obtained it from a voluntary transaction, but what if a long time ago the people who obtained the title got it using force?

.

If an individual makes a claim that he holds a right aquired as per above, or through explicit inheritance of a rightful claim, the conflicting claims would have to be adjudicated in some way.  It's highly doubtful any such individual with a remotely valid claim exists.  "Ancestral homeland" is not a legitimate claim.

There is a point at which even legitimate claims are properly considered abandoned for failure to assert them.  Add to that the fact that, especially in the US, the chain of claims likely goes back to a homesteader who had no concept of rightful property, and it gets nearly impossible to prove any competing claim.

The criteria was not whether or not anyone ever in history has ever been screwed out of their land, it is whether there is enough certainty in the claim of being screwed to justify forcing you off land that you have invested resources in acquiring and keeping. Adn only individuals can be screwed out of rightful property, not collectives or "peoples".

Solid_Choke:

If not, why is it that the state is not entitled to its property?

Because the state is not a moral agent that has any rights whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

Solid_Choke:

If this is true, do I legitimately own the title to my property?

Yes, assuming you didn't steal it yourself. If property has no identifiable owner than it belongs to the first person who homesteads it. Thats you. Uncertainty about the past does not effect your ownership, the only person that could dispute your ownership would be an identified prior owner.

If a thief holds land known to be stolen, but the victim is unknown, then whoever dispossess the thief has the strongest(oldest) known claim to the land.

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

If a thief holds land known to be stolen, but the victim is unknown, then whoever dispossess the thief has the strongest(oldest) known claim to the land.

How is one to know that he is the thief if there is no known victim? The thief is the rightful owner by presumption of innocence.

 

To answer the original question, if the law says that you own your land then you own it. The homesteading principle is only good for resolving conflicts over future property. It is not retroactive.

To answer the original question, if the law says that you own your land then you own it. The homesteading principle is only good for resolving conflicts over future property. It is not retroactive.

As I've pointed out to you plenty of times before, the result of this viewpoint is the legitimization of all currently existing property titles, including the state's. "Because the law recognizes this, it is legitimate" is what your argument boils down to. That defeats the whole purpose of market anarchism and justifies the current state of affairs. The homesteading principle is also a way to find out if currenty existing claims to property are valid, and if they are not there must be justice to the valid owners. To just automatically assume the legitimacy of the status quo makes no sense from any libertarian perspective. Only a conservative one which will lead you to defend criminals.

Well, I'll be odd man out. If you buy stolen land, you've bought nothing. It is unfair that you take a loss and the thief gets rewarded, but why is it more fair (less unfair) to leave things as they are and dispossess the original owner? Now, I'll grant that leaving things as they are doesn't involve coercion, and changing things does, so of course, the claimant needs to bring convincing evidence to the court, but the court's basic principle is, if the evidence is convincing, to give the property to the claimant with the substantiated, further-back claim. Then let the innocent person who bought the land without knowing it was stolen collect damages from the thief, not from the person who was robbed. Rothbard says there is a "presumption of innocence" with regard to land - that our initial assumption is that any particular parcel belongs to the current owner. I agree with this. The problem comes with someone comes to court with a convincing claim that goes back further. Someone, say, might do a title search and find conflicting title. He might also bring his grandfather's will giving the land to his father, and his father's will giving the land to him. This is not unowned land that the current owner has claimed by laboring on it, this is owned land that the current owner is squatting on. The court should therefore give the land to the claimant. Rothbard also said that if we see a situation where most people are working land belonging to others, while a few own large tracts of land on which they extract rent, we should have a presumption that theft has taken place, since this is an unlikely scenario. This is seen in most of the world today. My own belief is that government will do nothing to improve the situation, and almost certainly will make it worse, so there is no call to do anything to address it today. If we could establish a Rothbardian system, though, we'd need private courts and private title search companies to address it. Some people hold that claims that are old are not valid. I suggest that this belief arose out of the true statement that older claims are harder to verify and less likely to exist - most old claims will end up not being valid for the person making them. When they are validated, though, this doesn't lead to the idea that we shouldn't do anything with them. This is discussed in some depth in The Ethics of Liberty. This subject is usually one of the points on which Rothbard is called a 'radical' to differentiate him from vulgar libertarians.

Brainpolice:

As I've pointed out to you plenty of times before, the result of this viewpoint is the legitimization of all currently existing property titles, including the state's.

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

Politicians who create private property out of public property should be rewarded for what is an act of homesteading.

The state's claim to land is legitimate since most property is stolen from previous native people. But claiming property and making others who do not use it pay for it is theft. The state 's claim to it is legitimate, but it's ownership is not, hence they are not entitled to it. The tax payers are.

Stranger:

Brainpolice:

As I've pointed out to you plenty of times before, the result of this viewpoint is the legitimization of all currently existing property titles, including the state's.

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

Politicians who create private property out of public property should be rewarded for what is an act of homesteading.

 

Why can't the state have property titles? If I own land and sell it to the state, then their claim to it is valid, is it not? ( All ethics and morals aside. )

Stranger:

JonBostwick:

If a thief holds land known to be stolen, but the victim is unknown, then whoever dispossess the thief has the strongest(oldest) known claim to the land.

How is one to know that he is the thief if there is no known victim? The thief is the rightful owner by presumption of innocence.

Because it belongs to the State. It possible to know land is stolen without knowing who rightful owns it.

 

The situation I was imaginging was if a person kills your neighbor and moves into their house. If they have no heir, or if that heir is not identifiable, then the land will belong to whoever dispossesses the murderer, atleast until an heir is found.

 

 

Andrew:

If I own land and sell it to the state, then their claim to it is valid, is it not?

No, because the state payed for it with other people's money.

 

JonBostwick:

 

The situation I was imaginging was if a person kills your neighbor and moves into their house. If they have no heir, or if that heir is not identifiable, then the land will belong to whoever dispossesses the murderer, atleast until an heir is found.

That makes no sense. If you dispossess a criminal, you are claiming the rights of the victim. That means you are claiming to be the heir of the murder victim.

You have no right to touch other people's property, even if it has been stolen, without the agreement of the rightful owner.

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

Torsten:

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

Homesteading doesn't grant you any property titles until you run into conflict with someone and a court rules in your favor. The court ruling is your property title.

 

Torsten:

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

 

I don't think that an entire organization can reasonably be recognized as a single person. That's collectivist to the core. Furthermore, property titles aren't necessarily the same thing as property rights or justly aquired titles. And I've yet to see any state based purely on homesteading or voluntary exchange.

Brainpolice:

Torsten:

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

 

I don't think that an entire organization can reasonably be recognized as a single person. That's collectivist to the core. Furthermore, property titles aren't necessarily the same thing as property rights or justly aquired titles. And I've yet to see any state based purely on homesteading or voluntary exchange.

Have you seen any property titles held by individuals that were the results of a continuous chain of "homesteading and voluntary exchange"? Can I justly claim exclusive right to my property if 100 years ago my property was stolen from Spanish settlers that stole it from Native Americans that stole it from other Native Americans?

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the idea of "land" as property. In reality there is no such thing as land. There are forests, farms, neighborhoods, houses. Those are made by destroying what previously occupied the same space. If you build a house out of a farm, then the guy whose farm was stolen can never get it back - it has been irreversibly destroyed.

Solid_Choke:

Brainpolice:

Torsten:

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

 

I don't think that an entire organization can reasonably be recognized as a single person. That's collectivist to the core. Furthermore, property titles aren't necessarily the same thing as property rights or justly aquired titles. And I've yet to see any state based purely on homesteading or voluntary exchange.

Have you seen any property titles held by individuals that were the results of a continuous chain of "homesteading and voluntary exchange"? Can I justly claim exclusive right to my property if 100 years ago my property was stolen from Spanish settlers that stole it from Native Americans that stole it from other Native Americans?

 

That's a sneaky way of trying to justify the state by appealing to abandonment and the inability to restitute theft victims over multiple generations.

Stranger:

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the idea of "land" as property. In reality there is no such thing as land. There are forests, farms, neighborhoods, houses. Those are made by destroying what previously occupied the same space. If you build a house out of a farm, then the guy whose farm was stolen can never get it back - it has been irreversibly destroyed.

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

 

 

 

 

Brainpolice:

That's a sneaky way of trying to justify the state by appealing to abandonment and the inability to restitute theft victims over multiple generations.

I'm not trying to justify the state at all. I am trying to determine if MY property can be justified beyond simply saying "a lot of time has past". This isn't just meaningless theoretical stuff either. I really do own land in Arizona and wonder about my moral claim to the land, because of the possibility of past injustice involving the property titles I am now in control of.

Solid_Choke:

I'm not trying to justify the state at all. I am trying to determine if MY property can be justified beyond simply saying "a lot of time has past". This isn't just meaningless theoretical stuff either. I really do own land in Arizona and wonder about my moral claim to the land, because of the possibility of past injustice involving the property titles I am now in control of.

If a Spanish settler stole it from an individual Indian who had also stolen it from an individual then you would seem to be in possession of stolen property.

It is more likely to be the case that the 'United States' stole it from the 'Mexicans' who stole it from the 'Spanish' who stole it from the 'Indians' who may or may have not stole it from the 'Anasazi' , etc...

If nobody in that chain of collective ownership actually homesteaded the land but merely claimed it as the land of their people and  somewhere along the line it was abandoned it as is thought to be the case with the Anasazi then you should be just fine.

If you still have moral qualms I live in Az and will happily take it off your hands at pennies on the dollar to cleanse your conscience...a lot less painful than flogging yourself but that's an option too.

 

To:

Torsten:

Stranger:

The state doesn't have any property titles. A property title is granted by a third party.

 

A state - just as any legal person - can have property titles. And what about homesteading, that's not necessary granted by a third party. Do property titles have to be recognized by third parties? 

 

 it was replied:

Brainpolice:

I don't think that an entire organization can reasonably be recognized as a single person. That's collectivist to the core. Furthermore, property titles aren't necessarily the same thing as property rights or justly aquired titles. And I've yet to see any state based purely on homesteading or voluntary exchange.

 

Well, in that case any association including corporations, firms with more then one owner, companies etc. are "collectvist to the core". Thanks for clearing that up. More on legal persons.

 I was just treating the state like any other organisation or association as a legal person or entity. 

Stranger:

JonBostwick:

 

The situation I was imaginging was if a person kills your neighbor and moves into their house. If they have no heir, or if that heir is not identifiable, then the land will belong to whoever dispossesses the murderer, atleast until an heir is found.

That makes no sense. If you dispossess a criminal, you are claiming the rights of the victim. That means you are claiming to be the heir of the murder victim.

You have no right to touch other people's property, even if it has been stolen, without the agreement of the rightful owner.

That doesn't resolve the situation where the murdered has no heir and there is no rightful owner. The true victim is dead. A person would have serious leeway if they were acting on behalf of a murdered person. Even if an heir did turn up, the dispossesser would only be a criminal if they refused to recongize the heir's claim to the land.

As an aside, if a person dies without an heir, I don't see why the land should default to the closest relative. If no heir has been chosen and no close relative exists, then the land should be considered abandoned.

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

As an aside, if a person dies without an heir, I don't see why the land should default to the closest relative. If no heir has been chosen and no close relative exists, then the land should be considered abandoned.

A person may die without a will, but not without an heir. There will be multiple claims to inheritance that will be challenged in court, and custom will be involved to find who the legitimate heir is.

 The reason the dead's property should not be labelled abandoned is that it will result in people fighting over it, and the whole point of law is to avoid that.

Byzantine:

They won't have families ("Inter-generational tyranny!") and they won't form business entities or purchase insurance ("Collectivism!"), so eventually they'll die off on their 100% purely homesteaded land. 

Then Exxon will come along and find a bunch of oil under it and make a killing.

Worst strawman evar.

Of course it is possible for people to voluntarily form "collective" ownership of property through common title. But unless one realizes that it is the individuals within that body who own those things, and not the artifice itself, one is engaging in fallacy. The state pretends to exist as an individual entity, and makes claims on property, and exercises effective ownership over it as if it were an individual entity. But none of those things are true - in fact it is individuals committing amoral acts under the protection of a fictional "state".

Corporations are similar entities, being created by the state and having legal "rights" conferred upon them by the same (the individuals within those bodies are shielded from responsibility from any illegitimate acts they perform in the name of the corporate artifice, for example). That is what makes a corporation a collectivist fiction, whereas a voluntary association of individuals, acting as individuals, being individually responsible for their actions, is not.

MacFall:

Byzantine:

They won't have families ("Inter-generational tyranny!") and they won't form business entities or purchase insurance ("Collectivism!"), so eventually they'll die off on their 100% purely homesteaded land. 

Then Exxon will come along and find a bunch of oil under it and make a killing.

Worst strawman evar.

Of course it is possible for people to voluntarily form "collective" ownership of property through common title. But unless one realizes that it is the individuals within that body who own those things, and not the artifice itself, one is engaging in fallacy. The state pretends to exist as an individual entity, and makes claims on property, and exercises effective ownership over it as if it were an individual entity. But none of those things are true - in fact it is individuals committing amoral acts under the protection of a fictional "state".

Corporations are similar entities, being created by the state and having legal "rights" conferred upon them by the same (the individuals within those bodies are shielded from responsibility from any illegitimate acts they perform in the name of the corporate artifice, for example). That is what makes a corporation a collectivist fiction, whereas a voluntary association of individuals, acting as individuals, being individually responsible for their actions, is not.

 

*ding ding ding*

You have it right.

Like most of these discussions they take place in some theoretical fantasy world. If you believe that the state is justified and a legitimate actor then it doesn't matter what you think because the state will do whatever it wants and you have accepted this by definition as legitimate.

If you do not accept the state as legitimate and argue that in the absence of the state there will be no rules then you are equally wrong. A free society like the Liberty Colony will still have Private Defense Agencies and they will have rules for their members regarding land ownership and the passing of title.

One last word about corporations and the nonsense that corporations or similar structures won't exist in the absence of governement. It is normal for people to form groups for economic activity and it is normal that people will want to limit their liability equal to their investment in the group activity. Free societies will have corporations and they will be widely accepted and will have limited liability.

Maxliberty:

One last word about corporations and the nonsense that corporations or similar structures won't exist in the absence of governement. It is normal for people to form groups for economic activity and it is normal that people will want to limit their liability equal to their investment in the group activity. Free societies will have corporations and they will be widely accepted and will have limited liability.

 

That's right. In fact there are some examples of private held companies that acted in a realm, where there no state or government in the present sense existed. One example is the VEREENIGDE OOSTINDISCHE COMPAGNIE which i.e. founded the city of Cape Town.  

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/vocd.html

Of course they also had rules, punishment, enforcement structures and the like.

 

For the millionth time, you corporate hacks and monarchists in anarchist clothing fail to distinguish between a legal privilege (which is what corporate personhood is) and mere joint propietorship in an of itself. Limited liability, as it has existed from the beginning up to the present, is entirely the product of state interferance. So it makes no sense to propose that it's the inevitable result of a stateless society. In a truly stateless ociey, your precious corporations (which you tend to fallaciously defend in the name of a non-existant free market) are more likely to be taken over by the workers than they to become sustainable limited liability monopolists. They most certainly are not sustainable as corporations qua corporations without the massive government intervention and patronage that they rely on.

What from the armchair anarchist's point of view is the problem with this? In a free society people would also be free to form associations and organisations of all kind. And yes one also may call them corporations, firms,  companies, clubs and the like. These organisations could declare themselves legal persons and hence enter into contracts. The contracts could include assuming title or rights over land, intellectual property or movable property as well. Employment contracts. leases and the like would also be thinkable as well.

That many corporations "enjoy" state priviledges as well or that they used to dodge liabilities is meaningless for the subject. The initial question was by the way if the state could hold property titles or rights, which I answerde positively with yes, since one could view this institution as a legal person. Alternatively one could see that as a trust as well and trusts can hold titles, rights and properties as well.

Torsten:

What from the armchair anarchist's point of view is the problem with this? In a free society people would also be free to form associations and organisations of all kind. And yes one also may call them corporations, firms,  companies, clubs and the like. These organisations could declare themselves legal persons and hence enter into contracts. The contracts could include assuming title or rights over land, intellectual property or movable property as well. Employment contracts. leases and the like would also be thinkable as well.

That many corporations "enjoy" state priviledges as well or that they used to dodge liabilities is meaningless for the subject. The initial question was by the way if the state could hold property titles or rights, which I answerde positively with yes, since one could view this institution as a legal person. Alternatively one could see that as a trust as well and trusts can hold titles, rights and properties as well.

The difference between the state being considered the same as private associations is the voluntary nature of the private association and the coercion of the state. The state by definition is using coercion to establish it's position.

Brainpolice is in complete fantasy land that free societies will not have limited liability groups for commercial activities. Limited liability is not a creation of the state as such and people in a free society will create contracts that limit liability.

 

Byzantine:

Brainpolice:

In a truly stateless ociey, your precious corporations (which you tend to fallaciously defend in the name of a non-existant free market) are more likely to be taken over by the workers than they to become sustainable limited liability monopolists.

But you're not a Marxist.  Right.

I am going through all of Max's posts as a research project, and I saw this.  I can't believe I missed it before, but you're dead on.

This will probably prompt another angry YouTube video about red baiting, but I don't care.  Damn YouTube, and Damn the bandwidth the video will eat up!

Maxliberty:

Brainpolice is in complete fantasy land that free societies will not have limited liability groups for commercial activities. Limited liability is not a creation of the state as such and people in a free society will create contracts that limit liability.

Limited liability can be part of a contract and is in order as long as this is clear right from the beginning. It's a risk that other stakeholders may have to bear.