since so much land is currently owned by means that would be considered illegitimate, how would this land be turned into land that can be legitimately owned?
if a government sells off assets, that just seems like people are buying stolen land and stolen goods. it seems like there is systematic illegitimacy in land and real estate ownership.
what kind of system could be put in place to turn illegitimately acquired land back into land that can be legitimately claimed?
if land is acquired by government force, can a person secede from the government and then legitimately say they own the land they only acquired because of government?
In practice the legitimate owner of some land is the person who can prove that he is the legitimate owner of the land.
If a libertarian legal system were in place, individuals who think that someone else is illegitimately holding their land can file suit and try to regain their land. If they can prove their case, the land is returned to them. If not, not.
If there's some land where it's clear that the present occupant does not have a legitimate claim, but also there's no one else alive who can prove they have a legitimate claim, then that land is available for homesteading. Presumably, by the current occupant. This would be the case, I imagine, with land that was taken by the Federal government from the natives and then bought by settlers. It might be demonstrable that the settlers don't own the land legitimately, but who living can prove it was their ancestors 200 years ago that were the legitimate owners? Probably no one, in which case the land can be homesteaded by the current occupant.
What about Native Americans?
A native American can, like anyone else, file suit against the current occupant of land which he believes is rightfully his. If he can prove his case, the land is returned to him. If not, not.
Not to nitpick, but all of this assumes an arbiter and some binding nature to the judgment issued.
So, I don't think we can know how it will work. We simply know that there may be a time when property owned by the various state, local, and federal governments is somehow able to be acquired by private owners.
By force. If you secede you would have to keep control of the land by some means, the only method I can think of is force. As we have seen from the civil war, it is not likely the state will let you just secede.
How does one determine that land is legitimately owned? What factors come into play? What makes property private in the first place?
First come, first served.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Suum cuique.
Etc.
Minarchist:In practice the legitimate owner of some land is the person who can prove that he is the legitimate owner of the land.
I might restate this by replacing the "proof" with using some means by which he convinces his social peers that his claim is legtimate, such that they either a) step aside and allow his aggressive enforcement of the claim, or b) they actively and aggressively aid him in enforcing his claim. I think that's sufficient to create a "legitimate owner", but again bear in mind, I think the idea of ownership is one that necessarily arises, but the norms/laws used to understand how a society thinks of and validates ownership is going to be specific to that social group.
In the end ownership is a "claim of legtimate and exclusive right of use" and is therefor both a normative construction, and a social construction. What we know from praxeology is that the specific details of how a social group enacts (defines and enforces) ownership will have a direct effect on the types of economic behaviors that the group engages in. The rules can provide friction to some human actions, whle at the same reducing friction to other human actions.
Minarchist:If a libertarian legal system were in place, individuals who think that someone else is illegitimately holding their land can file suit and try to regain their land. If they can prove their case, the land is returned to them. If not, not. If there's some land where it's clear that the present occupant does not have a legitimate claim, but also there's no one else alive who can prove they have a legitimate claim, then that land is available for homesteading. Presumably, by the current occupant. This would be the case, I imagine, with land that was taken by the Federal government from the natives and then bought by settlers. It might be demonstrable that the settlers don't own the land legitimately, but who living can prove it was their ancestors 200 years ago that were the legitimate owners? Probably no one, in which case the land can be homesteaded by the current occupant.
Can a person's claim be deemed illegitimate without demonstrating that someone else has a legitimate claim? In otherwords the only illegitimate claim, is one that violate's a legitimate claim.
Also with the native american tribe issues, I wonder if it's possible to resolve those issues. First you'd have to establish the property standard which applied to the lands. Do you use US law? Or do you refer back to the law as it was at the time, of the tribes that were moved from the land?
If, for example, one could identify a tribe that existed in that geographic area, one would have to identify how the tribe viewed it's relationshp to the land, if it wasn't "ownership", then by their own standard, there is no property issue to reconcile. Even if by our own we would have viewed it as criminal. If ohwever there was an implicit ownershp by the "tribe", a kind of collective ownership, isn't that the preexisting standard? Handing the land back would require finding the tribe as it exists today (if it does). However, one also has to recognize that the law of that tribe at this point, may not be the same, so once it's handed over it's on that socio-political entity (the tribe) to resolve how to manage that property. They might decide to adopt natural individual property rights, and divvy up the land to private owners inside the tribe. Then the question is what system of law governs the behavior of these new private property owners. If it's the tribe, that's fine. I'd still support secession.
First come, first served. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Suum cuique. Etc.
Hypothetical "anarcho-communist" response:
Doesn't this lead to a situation of all against all and is responsible for most of the conflict in the world?
Crusoe and John Locke are on a desert island. There is a coconut tree. Crusoe wants that coconut tree. But so does John Locke. Who determines who gets ownership of the tree and the land around it? Do they have to fight and kill each other and the victor is blessed with the spoils? Isn't private property borne of war and violence?
Sioux tribes race to raise money to buy ceremonial land at auction
Auction for sacred South Dakota land canceled
The specific mechanism of a social group by which "legitimate use" of matter, at a place, during some period of time, by a specific person, is one that arises from the norms/laws of that social group. Whether these norms/laws are formal and enforced/applied by insitutions, or are the "unwritten rules" that every one just goes along with it still constitutes a mechanism for defining and identifying "legtimate right of use".
Private property is a specifically formed solution to the "legitimate right of use" issue, that acting man encounters.
So, I can give my definition of private property, but that doesn't mean everyone would agree with it. But I'll give it a try: "Private ownership is the exclusive and sovereign right to the use, direct or indirect, of a specific part of reality to include a specific location (area/volume), specific matter and energy that exist there The life of the right begins at some point, either through direct appropriation of the property from an unowned state, or through the transfer of such a right from another human being to you. The right can only be terminated by one of 3 conditions, the destruction of the specific property such that there is no thing that can be claimed or identified as the owned thing, the abandonment (lack of use, and/or inablity or unwillingness to pursue a claim of ownership), or a voluntary transfer of the legtimate claim to another."
The problem in modern polities, is that governments (through legslation and courts) will enact and enforce laws that supercede the "exclusive or sovereign right" of an individual human being. Thus private ownership, becomes a relationship that is usually deemed legitimate, but the state reserves the right to discard your claim, and substitute another claim.
Taxation is like this, I want 100% of my income. I traded a specific quantity of my time and my energy to an activity, in exchange for a specific quantity of money. The state says, yes, but I'm going to claim some of that money as not yours and take it. Because I can't deny it's right to any portion it decides to take, this means that the state exercises for all practical purposes, a right to 100% of my money, and simply allows me to have a portion of it. Meaning that the fruits of my labor are not owned by me in practice, but are rented to me, until such time as the government decides to come get it from me for some other purpose.
Ownershp of land, same thing. eminent domain in practice, operates as an exclusive and sovereign claim to the land. My own claim is thus a weaker and less defensible claim. In other words, I own it, until the government says, nope I own it.
if someone homesteads some land, then steals land from another, does he give up the right to both lands?
i'm trying to figure out this government territory thing, where land within cordinates are considered under a governments soverenty, yet the government did not homestead it. the government then claims people have to register with the government to legally own land within the cordinates, and will take away land from anyone who tries to succeede or homestead without registration.
this could be where people say land has been gotten from government favor rather than a process of homestead, and that creates privalige and class war when some get favors from a government that claims to own land it has not homesteaded, just within certain cordinates. through government comes exploitation as people are ready to take land by eminant domain or if people try to secede or not register.
Cortes: First come, first served. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Suum cuique. Etc. Hypothetical "anarcho-communist" response: Doesn't this lead to a situation of all against all and is responsible for most of the conflict in the world? Crusoe and John Locke are on a desert island. There is a coconut tree. Crusoe wants that coconut tree. But so does John Locke. Who determines who gets ownership of the tree and the land around it? Do they have to fight and kill each other and the victor is blessed with the spoils? Isn't private property borne of war and violence?
Ownership is the solution to conflict, not the cause of conflict. Scarcity is the cause of conflict. I want to use X to do Y. You say, nope I'm going to use X to do Z. Physical combat, killing, aggression, war are specific ways of resolving this conflict. Anarcho-communism must provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts which necessarily arise from the real phenomena of scarcity. Claiming ownership is a way to solve that problem. But it doesn't in and of itself remove the possibility that some man or group of men might choose to ignore or reject a claim of ownership and instead use some violent means by which to acquire a practical transfer of ownership.
"Doesn't this lead to a situation of all against all, and is responsible for most of the conflict in the world?"
I'd argue it's scarcity that puts men into competition with not only man but reality itself in order to get access to and use of the means to achieve his ends. Man does not use violence to force the land to bring crops into existence so that he can feed himself. But scarcity of food is the driver for such action. Property is a mechanism that allows men to avoid violent "all against all" engagement, by establishing mechanisms for peacefully interacting and cooperating.
In the crusoe, locke example, you've created a scarcity issue. We don't have to know how they will resolve the scarcity issue. But whatever the solution is it will involve some social agreement of how that scarce resource is used. That would in and of itself constitute a "rule" about right of use. We don't know if the coconuts are sufficiently scarce that both men can't meat their individual ends.
In fact, the problem of scarcity if it exists will exist no matter HOW you resolve it. The existence of some propertyless "solution" doesn't remove the scarcity issue. Individual property rights are a solution. If there's not enough coconuts it's not fixed or made any worse by an ownership claim.
You asked "Who determines who gets ownership of the tree and the land around it?" I'm asserting that it's irrelevant. If there's not enough food then there's not enough food and the fight that the scarcity engenders is inevitable regardless of the political values and rules you bring into this scenario.
In fact in your last question, you hit on the right understanding of the relationship between property and war.
Yes war and violence, which are resolution behaviors for conflicts, are inefficient (destructive and costly) mechanisms for resolving scarcity issues. That inefficiency is a specific feedback effect that makes peaceful solutions likely to arise and to win. Private property rights are such a peaceful solution.
People see disputes in courts, or battles between countries, and think ownership is the cause of the conflict. It's not, what you miss (because it's not present) is all of the disputes that would have happened, if the members of the social group DIDN'T have norms about legitimate use of scarce resources. Private Property is one of those formalized social norms that remove a vast quantity of conflicts from the gameboard. However it's only the conflicts we do see that we notice and take account of, and these conflicts are necessarily about acquiring exclusive access (or ownership/possession) to scarce resources. Those who make such arguments are inverting the causal chain; they are misinterpreting the emergent phenomena.
In my view, the rule of first use.
So the only rational solution for Crusoe and Locke would be to divide ownership of the tree between the two?
What if Crusoe killed Locke? Would that instead be an indictment of socialism, ("I revolt against your bourgeois property tyranny! I'm taking 'your' shit and giving it to society!" screams Locke as he smashes Crusoe to death with a coconut) which rests on the establishment of a sovereign territorial monopolist of force, rather than that of private property?
The private property approach would require cooperation and reciprocity for mutual benefit.
Therefore it is established by the ethic of reciprocity and the golden rule (NAP) and determined by scarcity, which no solution not based on private property can satisfactorily deal with without dealing with a tragedy of the commons.
It is also the approach that is most likely to ensure continuous civilization and future prosperity. Such prosperity and stability would be dubious in any artificial communal or collective system imposed by the stronger party, say, Locke fending off Crusoe and establishing commutopia (in his mind).
More in tune with Hume/de Jasay's understanding of private property, which seems far more stable to me than Locke's.
I am considering writing something based off of this dialogue for the Mises Wiki page for property. This should be a good starting point but I need to add more before I begin it.
Cortes: So the only rational solution for Crusoe and Locke would be to divide ownership of the tree between the two? What if Crusoe killed Locke? Would that instead be an indictment of socialism, ("I revolt against your bourgeois property tyranny! I'm taking 'your' shit and giving it to society!" screams Locke as he smashes Crusoe to death with a coconut) which rests on the establishment of a sovereign territorial monopolist of force, rather than that of private property? The private property approach would require cooperation and reciprocity for mutual benefit. Therefore it is established by the ethic of reciprocity and the golden rule (NAP) and determined by scarcity, which no solution not based on private property can satisfactorily deal with without dealing with a tragedy of the commons. It is also the approach that is most likely to ensure continuous civilization and future prosperity. Such prosperity and stability would be dubious in any artificial communal or collective system imposed by the stronger party, say, Locke fending off Crusoe and establishing commutopia (in his mind). More in tune with Hume/de Jasay's understanding of private property, which seems far more stable to me than Locke's. I am considering writing something based off of this dialogue for the Mises Wiki page for property. This should be a good starting point but I need to add more before I begin it.
I would recommend creating a thought experiment, imagine the set of identical islands as described above that contain a unique pair of human beings from a set of human beings that includes each human who's ever lived, and for each person, one copy of that person from a random time in each day of their life. The set would include every possible combination of that set of human beings. Obviously it's a huge number of islands, larger than the number of atoms in the universe.
Let's roll each island through a period of time and take a snapshot of the results, so let's take a snapshot at 1 day, 5 days, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, 5 years.
Now a lot of things would condition the results. 1) the ideology of each human, 2) the health of each human, 3) the quantity of sustenance each person needs to survive, 4) the capability of the pair to communicate, 5) the quantity of sustenance available from this hypothetical tree.
Now, the point of praxeological analysis of the situation is to establish the necessary consequences of any solution arrived at on day 1. If for example there is enough food generated by the tree to sustain 2 people perpetually then I would assume it's likely that in the majority of these simulations we would find both people alive on day 5, and 1 month, etc.
If there was not enough food we might find one person dead at 1 day, 5 days, or 1 month, depending on the amount of shortage, and the different ideological contents of the mind. The physical capabilities of the individuals might affect it also.
But what's the right answer? I might guess that from the inhabitants point of view, it's one that results in both individuals being alive at the 5 year snapshot if possible. Does any solution which achieves that goal constitute a good solution? If that's your criteria, and the laws of nature dictate that it's possible, all praxeology can tell us is whether or not the actions of the men can achieve that result.
My point is that there are lots of factors at play here, and tweaking the variables can result in many different outcomes. For example if the two inhabitants are of the opposite sex, and not beyond their child-bearing years... what if the island can support additional people?
Let me ask a different question. Is there any point of view that could possibly matter in each island situation than the two points of view that exist on the island? Even more clearly, if it's satisfactory to the inhabitants, is what we think relevant?
The other point I hope we get from that island, is that it doesn't mirror the real conditions in the world, so the insight gained from the solutions arrived at may not in fact be applicable to the real world. For example, what if we take as a given that the island can support life in both men. Well then on any island with both men alive at year 5, what can we know? They arrived at a solution which accomodated the needs of both men.
One condition that exists for man in the real world is the ability to increase the production to meet demand. On the island described this cannot happen, the island isn't sufficiently stocked with natural resources for the inhabitants to engage in any real production other than "getting a coconut". If however, you place him into a larger environment island, then perhaps we might find a lot more interesting solutions to various scarcity issues.