I've heard an argument from a libertarian who said that when a group of people decides to build a private town for themselves and their kin (maybe even including some future generations), they can fence a very large area and start construction on some part of this area.
Now according to this libertarian if homesteading a very large unsused land for a town is legitimate, then homesteading an entire country (like the United States) is legitimate as well.
What do you think about this argument?
I've heard an argument from a libertarian who said that
Therefore all libertarians agree with his statement...
when a group of people decides to build a private town for themselves and their kin (maybe even including some future generations), they can fence a very large area and start construction on some part of this area.
Sounds like they are actually using the area.
Sure. The keyword is homestead. I find it very unlikely that all of the USA could be homesteaded as easily as you make it sound. After all, there is still a ton of unused land yet to be homesteaded in America even today. So sure, logically it is possible, just like it is logically possible that everyone in America could burn all their cash tomorrow. Still not gonna happen in the real world.
See above.
The point is that when you fence an area to build a private town or a gated community, you don't start using all the area immediately. You assume that the gated community will grow larger in time. In the same way according to his argument you can homestead a whole country even though currently you don't use much of it.
The point is that when you fence an area to build a private town or a gated community, you don't start using all the area immediately.
Who says? Maybe the gated community uses it for recreation.
You assume that the gated community will grow larger in time. In the same way according to his argument you can homestead a whole country even though currently you don't use much of it.
You have this problem where you don't really understand what law is. It is not universal and objective. What might be acceptable on an individual level might not be acceptable on a large scale level. For example, you might decide to grow a vegetable garden. Perhaps you lay out where you are going to grow things and then start planting. Your community might be okay with this type of behavior. Try that out large scale and it doesn't fly.
An example from something else is paying for meals. In much of America, you pay after your meal. If you don't, it is considered theft. This is not always the case and some places actually require you to pay beforehand. Okay, so which way is right? Both. If the norm is to pay for meals after you have eaten, and you break this norm, it is theft. Likewise, if the norm is that you can claim a small area for a vegetable garden, then it is okay. If the norm is that you cannot claim a townsize amount of land without actually homesteading it, then it is not okay to claim a townsize amount of land without actually homesteading it.
If the norm were that it were okay, then it would be okay. But it is not the norm, and this is most likely because of the absurd disputes that it would cause if it were. And that is the point of a norm, to avoid disputes. So, your situation would cause too many absurd disputes, which is why it is not the norm, and why you cannot claim a whole continent as your own.
This is all purely academic. There aren't any 'countries' on Earth which aren't inhabited, and there haven't been since long before the first bandit decided to move in with his victims and establish a state.
Sure there are. A large proportion of the American West is essentially vacant land. That's partially because much of the land is more or less useless, but there are many potentially useful parts which the federal government simply refuses to allow anyone to use.
As for the OP:
The only function of property rights is to determine who should be allowed to use scarce resources. If there's some parcel of land, and the lumber jacks want it for lumber, and the hunters want it for hunting, and both can use it at the same time without interfering with the others, then there's no need for property rights. If both cannot use the land without interfering with the others, then and only then is there a need for property rights. And if it turns out that way, the question is: whose claim is strongest? Who's "using it the most?"
When comparing claims of use, one might consider temporal priority (who started using it first), or physical extent of use (especially with land), or investment in the property, or the value of the property to each party, or any number of other factors.
There is nothing in the NAP or any other aspect of libertarian ethics which can justify any one of these criteria for use over the others, as all of libertarian ethics presupposes property rights, and now we're trying to justify original property rights.
We can be pragmatists here, at least until/unless someone makes a persuasive argument that universal adoption of one or the other criterion will yield the best results in general.
I would lean toward investment in the property: i.e. he who invests the most is the owner (measured in money). I tend to think this would be both fair (in some intuitive sense) and also likely yield the best economic results, as those investing more (one would assume) would be the best stewards of the property in the future. A good study of actual settlement of raw land would be useful in trying to see what the consequences of different homesteading theories would be. (and again, we are looking at consequences here [and maybe trying to draw a principle therefrom], not trying to find a justification for one or the other theory of homesteading within libertarian ethics, which is impossible, since it all preupposes property rights).
gamma_rat: This is all purely academic. There aren't any 'countries' on Earth which aren't inhabited, and there haven't been since long before the first bandit decided to move in with his victims and establish a state.
Plenty of unclaimed "land" on the surface of the ocean and under it, all of it unclaimed. Seasteading ftw.
Plenty of unclaimed "land" on the surface of the ocean and under it
Not to mention....
http://www.lunarland.com/?aff_id=5&gclid=CO6f-JWJubECFYfe4Aod6gEADQ
I wonder if they got hit by the housing boom? LOL
Minarchist: Plenty of unclaimed "land" on the surface of the ocean and under it Not to mention.... http://www.lunarland.com/?aff_id=5&gclid=CO6f-JWJubECFYfe4Aod6gEADQ I wonder if they got hit by the housing boom? LOL
I consider seasteading and ocean-colonization a necessary intermediary between spacefaring civilization. Living on the water, or under it, is closer to living in space than can be terestrially achieved any other way without simulating a vacuum. At least you have similar problems to solve.
As for actually buying land on the moon, it's a bit silly at this point.
Well, you own the land that you appropriate (homestead) out of its original state, so according to Rothbardian property theory you cannot own land that you have not homesteaded.