At what point does stolen property become legitimate property?
For example, land stolen from Native Americans... how can it rightfully be deeded to a US citizen and then passed on to subsequent heirs?
This is something I've long wondered about. The problem is that almost everything has a history of violence attached to it, so how can there be any rightful property at all?
So, chapter nine in the Ethics of Liberty is entirely relevant to this thread. I suggest that you read the whole chapter (or even the whole book), but I will quote the most relevant portion:
The answer is that the criterion holds as we have explained above: The right of every individual to own his person and the property that he has found and transformed, and therefore “created,” and the property which he has acquired either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with other such transformers or “producers.” It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, “produces” them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones’s title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its “first” (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.”[7] Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones’s title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides.[8] In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now—after Jones has been apprehended-in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to “homestead” it—to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this “first” person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.
The answer is that the criterion holds as we have explained above: The right of every individual to own his person and the property that he has found and transformed, and therefore “created,” and the property which he has acquired either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with other such transformers or “producers.” It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, “produces” them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner.
Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones’s title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its “first” (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor.
But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.”[7] Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.
Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones’s title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides.[8] In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now—after Jones has been apprehended-in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to “homestead” it—to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner.
But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this “first” person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.
But there is far more before and after this portion, and it is even better when read in context. So I highly suggest reading the entire chapter.
jodiphour: Of course, someone will argue that violence requires infringement of property rights, so taking property from a thief is not violent. And that is a valid point too and may solve the conundrum.
Of course, someone will argue that violence requires infringement of property rights, so taking property from a thief is not violent. And that is a valid point too and may solve the conundrum.
That is not the typical understanding of the word violence. Violence is physical force. If you take the property from the thief through force, you have used violence against him.
This is different from aggression, which is the initiation of violence or the threat thereof. Taking the property from the thief is not aggressive (within proportion), so it is in line with the NAP.
Violence can be used to create just ownership.
There is a proper role for the use or threat of violence. The fact that - a priori - we desire the minimization of violence does not flow from violence being in some cosmic sense "immoral" but, rather, from the simple fact that it is impoverishing. Hence, the minimization of violence is not an end-in-itself. Rather, prosperity (individual human flourishing) is the end desired and the minimization of violence is one of the logical preconditions to achieving this. This is why we're not pacifists.
Clayton -
When it is seen as legit by relevant customs
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Therefore, taxation is legitimate?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
But doesn't that mean that taxation is not theft?
lol... beat me to it!;) I think this is a can o worms...
I suggest you read Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution by Murray Rothbard.
Andway, if property has been stolen, it belongs to the rightful owner or his heirs. But if you cannot prove who the rightful owner is, then there is no way to know who the rightful owner is. The property becomes "unowned" and can be homesteaded. Whoever is the current user of the unowned property has the best claim to the property and homesteads it by being the new first user.
Regarding the land owned by Native Americans, well this is even harder to prove. You see, not only would the Native Americans have to be able to point to the specific heirs of the owners of the land, they would have to prove which land was owned to begin with. It's not enough to just say, "Well, this general area was owned by Native Americans of such and such tribe. So return it to the heirs of the tribe." That is not how it works. You need specific people to have specific claims, and then they have to prove them.
I hope I didn't go in circles too much.
ya... but that just means that rightful ownership depends on documentation... Is property something inherent or is it relative to what documents say?
If I destroy all records of your ownership, and pay off or kill everyone who knows the truth about your property, then I can become the rightful owner?
jodiphour: ya... but that just means that rightful ownership depends on documentation... Is property something inherent or is it relative to what documents say?
No, that is not what it means. Rightful property belongs to the just owners. That is what it means. If the rightful owners are dead, then it passes on to who has the best claim, which is their heirs or whoever they name in their will. If there is no one, then it is unowned property and can be homesteaded by the next user.
Documentation only helps prove who the rightful owner is. One does not need written documentation if there are witnesses who people can believe, but written documentation is much better. Documentation plus witnesses is even better.
The point is, regarding the Native Americans, that if specific people cannot prove that they are the legitimate owner of X property, then we have no way of knowing if this is true or not. Are we supposed to just kick out the current owners because some people are claiming they are the rightful owners, and they aren't even going to try to prove it?
The burden of proof ought to be on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
jodiphour: If I destroy all records of your ownership, and pay off or kill everyone who knows the truth about your property, then I can become the rightful owner?
No, you are not the rightful owner. Just because you murder the rightful owner and no one else has a better claim to the property doesn't mean you can be the rightful owner. And I seriously doubt any customs would ever come to be that would okay that practice.
Native americans who owned property have living heirs... so it is still their rightful property? Or does rightful inheritance stop after one generation or something? So if i take your property, say your car, at what point does it rightfully become mine? I know it sounds assinine, but i think it is a perfectly valid question based in logic. We clai that we rightfully own our property as americans, so we have to explain at what point it became our rightful property and not that of the native americans...
There might be an out that hasn't been mentioned yet: That even though the native Americans are the rightful owners of the land, the current owner as decided by US govt documentation has a stronger claim of ownership than another US citizen. I.e. If I steal your car, even though you are the rightful owner, I still have a stronger claim to it than someone who would steal it from me. So this may be a somewhat satisfactory solution, but it also destroys any sense of rightful ownership in favor of ownership defined by the most successful use of force --- to the victor goes the spoils.
So... since the native americans cannot prove specific claims of ownership, then they cannot be returned their property. But we cannot prove rightful ownership ourselves, and we don't have to... the onus is on the rightful owner to prove ownership.
So if I steal your property and you cannot prove rightful ownership, then how do I not become the rightful owner? What if I have provided all the required forged documentation?
Once again, that we know the US land was stolen from someone, means, by definition, that the current owners are not rightful owners. So does this means that most property in the US is not rightful property? How do we get around this? At some point, the theif or the heirs of the theif must become rightful owners...
No clue. However taxation can not rationally tell me anything, distribute things, or do what it claims to set out to do. There is no legit way taxation can say it is doing something "good". This will just send us down the rabbit hole of subsidies and their nature.
Native americans who owned property have living heirs... so it is still their rightful property? Or does rightful inheritance stop after one generation or something?
So what plot of land are these specific Indians supposed to rightfully own? There need to be specific claims. It is not enough to say, "Well, my ancestors lived somewhere in the vicinity of what is now Houston, TX. So I want my land back, please." Maybe there are rightful heirs, but we need specific claims and proof.
So if i take your property, say your car, at what point does it rightfully become mine?
Well, it may be the case that not all libertarians will agree with me on this, but I would argue that it never rightfully becomes yours, as you stole it. I suspect most libertarians would agree with me on this point.
I disagree with this. In my opinion, the thief can never become the rightful owner.
Right. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant is guilty. That is what "innocent until proven guitly" is for.
The thief can never be the rightful owner. If you can fool society, you may become the legal owner.
The rightful owners are those who have the best claim to the property in question. Heirs are not always those with the best claim, it is just usually the case that heirs do have the best claim. When a rightful owner dies, his property becomes unowned. Whoever has the best claim becomes the rightful owner. Typically these are heirs or people designated in a will, but it does not have to be the case. It may be that a neighbor may have a better claim than the owner's son. Who knows? Who has the best claim is not set in stone.
Regarding Indians, the problem is that there are no specific locations that the so-called rightful owners are claiming to own. Maybe there are Indians with rightful property, but we have no way of knowing, because it cannot be proved. The property then goes to the people who do have the best claim, which is the current user.
You have two choices:
1. No native american property was stolen.
2. Some US property is not rightfully owned.
Or is there a logical option I'm missing?
Yes, there is. This is getting a little tiring repeating myself. Where is this so called property that is supposed to have been stolen? Is 109 Main Street Oklahoma City, OK? Or is it 314 School Street Kansas City, MO?
You can't say that the Indians owned all of Ohio, as they did not own all of it. So, where is this land in Ohio that they are claiming was stolen? What specific plots of land?