As far as I can tell, you didn't indicate any of this in any of your previous posts. So at best, you simply forgot to include these qualifications, even though you'd thought of them. At worst, you're deliberately moving the goalposts so that you can continue to feel like the "winner" in this thread.
I am adding details when it makes the example more analogous to the state.
Exactly how did everyone who immigrated there necessarily acquiesce and acknowledge the British claim over the area?
The same way the tenants acquiesced and acknowledged the landlord's property.
I don't understand the part about "and then agreeing to give it to the King". Can you please explain what you mean by this?
The people who settled Jamestown agreed that it would be the King's property in the same way that the construction workers agreed that the house would be the landlord's.
If I steal your car, do you think that means I forefeit all of my property?
Some people here think that the government doesn't legitimately own anything because it obtained it through stolen resources. If the landlord only owns things due to the money he has made off stolen resources, then he doesn't legitimately own his possessions either.
I can't address your question without understanding how people who homesteaded land in the 13 Colonies subsequently "gave it to the King".
They didn't subsequently give it up any more than the construction workers in my example subsequently gave up the house. It was understood when the colonists settled the land that the king would have authority just like the landlord.
At the heart of our dispute, however, are the premises for establishing ownership. You take occupation-and-use as your premises thereof, whereas I do not. Since these are premises, and not conclusions, we can't prove one or the other wrong. We can only accept or reject each other's premises. Obviously, I reject yours.
No, I am assuming homesteading (though perhaps I fail to understand parts of it). I am trying to figure out why the settling of the New Word doesn't constitute homesteading but the actions of the landlord does. I think this is my main question.
So would you say it's reasonable to steal the next time I'm in a Walgreens? Because I think I could overpower the store clerk. Also, I'll have the element of surprise on my side.
I think the bigger deterrent is the fact that you might have cops after you. Many stores actually forbid their employees from directly preventing theft (I know Walmart does this).
He kicked off people before he legitimately owned it. Is that not simply taking it in the same way that the state does?
If he kicked people off their own property then obviously he stole it. But that's not what happened in my scenario.
I didn't say that's what he meant. I was asking if it was. And guess what, it was (see post below yours)!
You react with such glee to find that you can make even a pedantic criticism of my post. But I would have to disagree with his concept of homesteading, then.
OK, this is actually what I was initially assuming.
Then in your assumption the land remains unowned.
But it doesn't matter if they owned it in the first place. The landlord in my example didn't own it before he hired the construction workers. He hired five construction workers. Only one of them signed an agreement. The one who signed the contract that he was going to get other laborers to help him. The construction worker descendant who now claims ownership over the house was one of the ones who didn't sign the contract. Does that make his claim more valid?
This conversation is quickly beginning to diminish in value. If the workers signed over the property to the landlord then it is the landlord's and no one elses.
pe. The tenant never signed a contract with the landlord. Does that mean the landlord can't ask him to pay or leave?
Yes.
What if the landlord points the gun at the tenant and says, "pay me $50 or leave the house"? That's what the government does. It won't force you to pay property taxes if you leave the country. If the landlord isn't a thief, then how is the government?
The nuance is lost on you. I'll let more experienced posters try to convey the difference between a territorial monopoly which wields power over property that is not its own and a sole individual who protects his or her lawfully acquired property.
"So would you say it's reasonable to steal the next time I'm in a Walgreens? Because I think I could overpower the store clerk. Also, I'll have the element of surprise on my side."
You probably won't have to fight the clerk. Shoplifting isn't even that hard. Fighting the clerk makes the whole ordeal riskier, and less reasonable if your goal is to minimize risk. It wouldn't bother me if you shoplifted.
"Then there would never be any contracts - only surrender by the weaker to the stronger. Hobbes was right after all!"
If Hobbes can even be credited with inventing that non-sequiter.
You realize that I'm arguing a principal that Clayton used, right? I'm following the logical conclusions of his statements.
Fool on the Hill:I am adding details when it makes the example more analogous to the state.
So you are moving the goalposts. I don't think I have to tell you just how logically fallacious, and therefore dishonest, that tactic is.
Fool on the Hill:The same way the tenants acquiesced and acknowledged the landlord's property.
Pretend I'm an idiot and spell it out for me. I'm not a mind-reader.
Fool on the Hill:The people who settled Jamestown agreed that it would be the King's property in the same way that the construction workers agreed that the house would be the landlord's.
They did? Can you support that assertion?
Fool on the Hill:Some people here think that the government doesn't legitimately own anything because it obtained it through stolen resources. If the landlord only owns things due to the money he has made off stolen resources, then he doesn't legitimately own his possessions either.
But the allegedly "government-owned" land is considered by Clayton and myself (at least) to actually be unowned land. The aggression is by the government against the landlord, in the former forcing the latter to pay it in exchange for not attacking him.
Fool on the Hill:They didn't subsequently give it up any more than the construction workers in my example subsequently gave up the house. It was understood when the colonists settled the land that the king would have authority just like the landlord.
Then why did you refer to colonists giving up their land to the King?
Fool on the Hill:No, I am assuming homesteading (though perhaps I fail to understand parts of it). I am trying to figure out why the settling of the New Word doesn't constitute homesteading but the actions of the landlord does. I think this is my main question.
The settling of the New World did constitute homesteading by the settlers. The King didn't homestead any land in the New World. Any/all of his agents acting on his behalf were necessarily aggressors in my book.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Birthday Pony:You probably won't have to fight the clerk. Shoplifting isn't even that hard. Fighting the clerk makes the whole ordeal riskier, and less reasonable if your goal is to minimize risk. It wouldn't bother me if you shoplifted.
Do you shoplift? If not, why not?
Why do you think more people don't shoplift, if it's so easy for them to do so?
Birthday Pony:If Hobbes can even be credited with inventing that non-sequiter.
How is it a non-sequitur? If one would only be motivated to follow a contract if he felt guaranteed to lose in open conflict, then contracts would only occur in cases of "stronger" people subjugating "weaker" people - or, conversely, "weaker" people surrendering to "stronger" people. This is exactly Thomas Hobbes' characterization of man's "state of nature" in his book Leviathan.
Birthday Pony:You realize that I'm arguing a principal that Clayton used, right? I'm following the logical conclusions of his statements.
Can you lay out what you see as the logical conclusions of his statements? By "lay out", I mean in a systematic fashion, of course.
"Do you shoplift? If not, why not?"
5th
"Why do you think more people don't shoplift, if it's so easy for them to do so?"
I don't know about you, but I think a good great deal of people shoplift. I know people stop because of not wanting to deal with the police or beause they feel the risk is not worth it. Others it probably never crossed their mind, and some people just feel bad about it, so they don't.
"Can you lay out what you see as the logical conclusions of his statements? By "lay out", I mean in a systematic fashion, of course."
Well, I can quote Clayton:
"It's not just that it's against one's interests but that it is necessarily preferable to repudiate the contract and accept a state of open conflict to abiding by the terms of the contract or negotiating a settlement based on the terms of the contract. Such contracts are absurd. Only contracts which specify terms that are less odious than open conflict resulting from repudiation of the terms of the contract are realistic and meaningful."
In a case where I have a chance at winning in "open conflict" against proprietarian rights, it is neessarily preferable to be in open conflict where I have a chance of winning, versus accept the contract where there is 0% chance.
I think the problem with my argument is that I haven't provided a detailed enough counter example. So let me do that and clarify what I gather are the important points in my first example. Let's consider two situations: Situation A and Situation B.
Situation A
This is the landlord situation that I have outlined in my previous posts, so I won't repost everything here. Through our discussion, I think we have agreed on the following points:
1. A contract exists between the landlord and the construction workers.
2. Only one worker signed the contract, but the contract is binding to the other workers because the other workers have signed a contract with the worker-employer.
3. The contract includes these three clauses:
A. The landlord will pay the construction workers a designated amount.
B. The construction workers will build a house according to the specifications of the landlord in within the designated area.
C. The land and materials worked by the workers in fulfilling the terms of the contract will be the property of the landlord.
4. Clauses A and B constitute prices each party pays. Clause C determines ownership.
Situation B
For situation B, I'd like to use a situation that Murray Rothbard describes in these words:
"In the United States, we have been fortunate enough to largely escape continuing aggression in land titles. It is true that originally the English Crown gave land titles unjustly to favored persons (for example, the territory roughly of New York State to the ownership of the Duke of York), but fortunately these grantees were interested enough in quick returns to subdivide and sell their lands to the actual settlers. As soon as the settlers purchased their land, their titles were legitimate, and so were the titles of all those who inherited or purchased them. Later on, the United States government unfortunately laid claim to all virgin land as the "public domain," and then unjustly sold the land to speculators who had not earned a homestead title. But eventually these speculators sold the land to the actual settlers, and from then on, the land title was proper and legitimate."
http://mises.org/daily/4047
From this we can infer the following points:
1. A contract exists between the Crown and the settlers (i.e. he says they "purchased" the land).
2. Only "favored persons" (may have) signed the contract, but the contract is binding to the actual settlers because the actual settlers have signed a contract with the favored persons.
A. The settlers will pay the Crown a designated amount (This may occur via the favored persons). The settlers may settle the designated area. If they do, Clause B and Clause C apply.
B. The Crown will provide the settlers with all services it provides to such citizens in the designated area (e.g. defense).
C. The land and materials worked by the settlers in fulfilling the terms of the contract will be the property of the Crown.
I suspect that our only disagreement--correct me if I'm wrong--is over Clause C of Situation B. Is Clause C in the contract? Here are two reasons why I think so:
1. The Crown claims that the designated land is already a part of the British Empire. The Crown would have to specify that the contract removes the designated land from its claim. Otherwise, Clause C is implicitly there.
2. Clause B specifies that the Crown provide the settler with a never ending amount of service while Clause A only specifies that the settler pay a finite amount of money. If the Crown is to offer Clause B, it seems reasonable that it would do so with a separate clause providing it with a never ending supply of tax revenue. Clause C provides this ability.
Rothbard provides a more detailed description of Situation B in the following article about William Penn and the settling of Pennsylvania: http://mises.org/daily/1865
"In his quest for such a charter, Penn was aided by the fact that the Crown had owed his father, Admiral Sir William Penn, the huge sum of 16,000 pounds for loans and back salary. In March 1681 the king agreed to grant young William, the admiral's heir, proprietary ownership of the lands west of the Delaware River and north of the Maryland border in exchange for canceling the old debt."
We see that Clause A is present here (Penn essentially pays the Crown 16,000 pounds).
"The Privy Council could veto Pennsylvania's actions, and the Crown, of course, could hear appeals from litigation in the colony."
The latter falls under Clause B.
"The Navigation Acts had to be enforced, and there was an ambiguous provision implying that England could impose taxes in Pennsylvania."
This provision, along with the one establishing the authority of the Privy Council, clearly supports the presence of Clause C.
Now the question is, Did the actual settlers sign with Penn or did they make their way to the land themselves and settle without permission (thus avoiding the contract and obligation to honor Clause C)? Here is what Rothbard says:
"Penn was anxious to promote settlement as rapidly as possible, both for religious (a haven to Quakers) and for economic (income for himself) reasons, Penn advertised the virtues of the new colony far and wide throughout Europe. Although he tried to impose quitrents and extracted selling prices for land, he disposed of the land at easy terms. The prices of land were cheap. Fifty acres were granted to each servant at the end of his term of service. Fifty acres also were given for each servant brought into the colony. Land sales were mainly in moderate-sized parcels. Penn soon found that at the rate of one shilling per hundred acres, quitrents were extremely difficult to collect from the settlers. Induced by religious liberty and relatively cheap land, settlers poured into Pennsylvania at a remarkably rapid rate, beginning in 1682."
The settlers must have signed a contract since they "bought" the land. Further, Rothbard states that Penn wanted to "sell" the land in order to produce tax revenue for himself. Thus, he must have included Clause C.
Curiously, Rothbard goes on to state the following:
"He soon found his expectations of large proprietary profits from the vast royal grant to be in vain. For the people of the struggling young colony of Pennsylvania extended the principles of liberty far beyond what Penn was willing to allow. The free people of Pennsylvania would not vote for taxes, and simply would not pay the quitrents to Penn as feudal overlord. ... The laws had called for a small payment to the councillors, but, typically, it was found to be almost impossible to extract these funds from the populace."
So the people who signed the contract started to violate it, just like the construction worker descendant who claims the landlord's house and the tenant who refuses to leave. And what does Rothbard say of this contract violation?
"the reality must be faced that the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience. ... Pennsylvanians persisted in their de facto anarchism by blithely and regularly evading the royal navigation laws [i.e. the laws that the contract specified must be kept]."
So violating a contract constitutes an act of anarchism. And what's more, violating such a contract is a good thing!
"William Penn had the strong and distinct impression that his "holy experiment" had slipped away from him, had taken a new and bewildering turn. Penn had launched a colony that he thought would be quietly subject to his dictates and yield him a handsome profit. ... Unable to collect revenue from the free and independent-minded Pennsylvanians, he saw the colony slipping gracefully into outright anarchism ... Penn frantically determined to force Pennsylvania back into the familiar mold of the old order."
Penn sounds a lot like the landlord in my example, no?
So am I missing something here or is Rothbard contradicting himself?
I'm sorry if I overreacted, but I thought you were accusing me of libel. The "glee" was in reaction to the (perceived) absurdity of Autolykos's position/definition, not your accusation. Let's just forget about it though, OK? I've also self-censored my other post that people seemed to have taken offense to.
Birthday Pony:"Do you shoplift? If not, why not?" 5th
I take that to mean you do. One thing: if I were to ever see you shoplifting, I'd try to stop you.
Birthday Pony:"Why do you think more people don't shoplift, if it's so easy for them to do so?" I don't know about you, but I think a good great deal of people shoplift. I know people stop because of not wanting to deal with the police or beause they feel the risk is not worth it. Others it probably never crossed their mind, and some people just feel bad about it, so they don't.
But if people stop because of not wanting to deal with the police or because they feel the risk is not worth it, that means it's not so easy for them to do it, right?
I don't know about you, but I think the vast majority of people do not shoplift the vast majority of the time.
Birthday Pony:"Can you lay out what you see as the logical conclusions of his statements? By "lay out", I mean in a systematic fashion, of course." Well, I can quote Clayton: "It's not just that it's against one's interests but that it is necessarily preferable to repudiate the contract and accept a state of open conflict to abiding by the terms of the contract or negotiating a settlement based on the terms of the contract. Such contracts are absurd. Only contracts which specify terms that are less odious than open conflict resulting from repudiation of the terms of the contract are realistic and meaningful." In a case where I have a chance at winning in "open conflict" against proprietarian rights, it is neessarily preferable to be in open conflict where I have a chance of winning, versus accept the contract where there is 0% chance.
Thanks for clarifying. I think you've actually strengthened my argument. Accepting a contract where there is 0% chance of winning in open conflict is the same as agreeing to terms of surrender, isn't it? Hence we're back to Hobbes, his "Sovereign", and Leviathan.
Fool on the Hill:I'm sorry if I overreacted, but I thought you were accusing me of libel. The "glee" was in reaction to the (perceived) absurdity of Autolykos's position/definition, not your accusation. Let's just forget about it though, OK? I've also self-censored my other post that people seemed to have taken offense to.
Perhaps you'd like to actually point out "the (perceived) absurdity of [my] position/definition"? Otherwise, no, I'm not going to just forget about it.
Also, you could respond directly to this post?
That's what it sounds like, based on what Clayton said. Take it up with him.
I warmed up to your definition after thinking about it for awhile. I no longer think it's that absurd.
They signed an agreement. See Situation B in my post above.
They signed a charter. They named it after the king. See my post on Pennsylvania for a similar example.
In the Emergence thread, Clayton says that the government does own unhomesteaded land such as rainforests and can sell the land legitimately.
Yes, the government would attack the landlord if he tried to homestead the unowned land without paying them, BUT the landlord would also attack the construction workers if they tried to build a house on "his" unhomesteaded land without paying him. If you want a real life example, think of Disney World. Before Disney World was built, the land was an unhomesteaded swamp. In your theory, Disney did not own this land before it had built anything there. But if Universal Studies tried to build something on this unowned land, Disney would have used force against them. So there is an element of coercion undermining any contract that any construction workers sign with Disney.
This was my comment: "Are not the people moving there homesteading the land and then agreeing to give it to the King in the same way that the construction workers are building a house and giving it to the landlord in my example?"
You are right in that my sentence does imply that they made the agreement after homesteading the land. This was carelessness on my part as the sentence also implies that the construction workers gave up the house after building it. Clearly in both instance, they agreed to give it up before homesteading even began. I accept the blame for the miscommunication.
How is William Penn more of an aggressor than the landlord in my example? Both bought unhomesteaded land from the state and then acted like they owned it.
This seems relevant.
Someone smarter than me said this on another board:
"But before I say anything else, let me say straight out that I consider the land claimed by the US government to be stolen, as a political position. However, looking conceptually at the US Government and property, that view is not entirely correct. In fact, the acquisition of the land on which the US now sits is considered legal according to international law. Historically, there have been three ways to acquire new land and territory; the settlement of unpopulated land, conquest or treaty. Unlike, Australia where the continent was falsely declared "terra nullius" and gradually encroached upon by colonisers until the indigenous population was massacred and displaced, in the US at least, the land was not stolen, but it was taken as a result of war, or conquest. This is largely why the US government and legal system has been reluctant to recognise Native Title within it's jurisdiction, and has instead preferred to negotiate limited treaties over certain areas. Contrary to your claims, the US government is, in fact, the de jure owner of the land that makes up the US. And, conceptually, they are, to all intents and purposes, a landlord with its parliament a sovereign law maker in the same manner the board of a housing co-op creates regulations for its use. The authority of the state then, is derived largely from ownership, in a manner derived from feudalism. We pay tax to the government in the same manner as a tenant pays rent to a landlord. When you own land, that ownership is not necessarily absolute, it is not entirely yours. Your ownership is regulated by statute and common law, in the same way a lease agreement is regulated by the covenants put in place by the lessor. It's partly why, in the past, voting, jury duty and other privileged activities were restricted to the "propertied". We are, to all intents and purposes, the serfs of the State. A tier system exists: the State grants limited use of its land to individual free citizens and companies as artificial legal persons with a certain set of conditions. In turn these people apportion the land, and either sell, rent or use the land themselves. Sometimes all three. In such a way the use of the land is heavy regulated by this chain of relationships at all times."
Yeah, and as I stated in another thread, according to Rothbard, someone who inherits land that has been stolen does not have to relinquish it if a descendant of the original owner can't be located. Clearly the current government of France has merely inherited stolen land and has not stolen it itself. And surely the descendants of the original homesteaders cannot be located (members of the government are probably descended from a large portion of them!). Thus, the government of France must be the legitimate owners, per Rothbard.