Let's just say I randomly find a brand new continent (or planet, or whatever large, unclaimed area you choose). What are the limits to my homesteading it? Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just marking a map? I anticipate somebody saying "homesteading is applying labor to some unused portion of land," but who's to say whether I'm using it or not, right? Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years? If it's really mine, it shouldn't matter what I do with it, but then what's to stop somebody from claiming, say, the moon, just in case his descendents ever want it? Is it like calling shotgun: you have to be close to it to call it?
Is there somewhere where this question is treated a little more thoroughly? And yes I recognize how impractical these questions are; just curious.
Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years?
Yes. The land wouldn't be homesteaded unless you actually use it (and mark it), otherwise multiple people could claim that they were just waiting until they were ready (conflict).
Here is a neat paper by M. Garrett Roth, it doesn't cover everything you want, its interesting nonetheless.
Right that definitely makes sense. I guess my question is more, "what constitutes use?" I'm envisioning something like a farsighted pioneer finding unclaimed land, marking his territory so to speak, and "using" it in a very superficial way just for the purpose of holding onto it. Would this be legitimate homesteading?
Would soil analysis on a 30,000 acre potential Jurassic Park be considered homesteading? Or would I have to fence it all in in order to have homesteaded it?
I can think of a dozen other questions like this, which is why I'm probably better off with whatever somebody like a Hoppe wrote on the subject. If anybody knows, that would be great.
**Edit** Sorry about that I didn't see your link there at the bottom. Thanks very much, I'll take a look at that paper.
"Use" in this sense would be defined through common law. Hoppe has written on the subject - The Economics and Ethics of Private Property - Block as well has written some wonderful things, but I don't think anyone has answered all of your questions.
Fencing would only cover the area that the fence rests upon. I could plant a 3m circle of fence on the moon (perhaps where the astronauts landed), and claim that I was just demarking the inside of the circle as land that is not mine. Due to the nature of a sphere, I would have technically "fenced in" the rest of the space, but I would not have mixed my labor with anything except the physical space occupied by the fence.
Here is a great resource http://mises.org/books/boundaries.pdf start at the chapter "What Can Be Owned"
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Thanks for all the suggestions, everybody.
When I homestead, I fly a crop duster for hours and mix my labourz with hundreds of acres with ease.
You're approaching the problem from some abstract libertarian ethic instead of the economic nature of the problem - production of land. The question should be, how much land do you wish people to produce? If the answer is a whole continent, then you should homestead a whole continent.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stephen Adkins: This question begs whether lockeanism or say occupancy and use is vitable or maybe none. " What are the limits to my homesteading it?" It depends on the theory but roughly in the broadest terms you must use it. "Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just marking a map?" No. Libertarians reject this or at least should. "I anticipate somebody saying "homesteading is applying labor to some unused portion of land," but who's to say whether I'm using it or not, right?" If you've not first made use of it then your not using it.Pretty obvious. "Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, " Yes. "or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years?" No.Not even in lockeanism.Occupancy and use is particularly opposed to this. ", but then what's to stop somebody from claiming, say, the moon, just in case his descendents ever want it? Is it like calling shotgun: you have to be close to it to call it?" No there must be an actual link between individual(s) using the resource and the resource. "Is there somewhere where this question is treated a little more thoroughly? And yes I recognize how impractical these questions are; just curious." Hoppe's socialism and capitalism,Rothbard's for a new liberty, mutualism e.g. Proudhon etc(?)
This question begs whether lockeanism or say occupancy and use is vitable or maybe none.
" What are the limits to my homesteading it?"
It depends on the theory but roughly in the broadest terms you must use it.
"Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just marking a map?"
No. Libertarians reject this or at least should.
"I anticipate somebody saying "homesteading is applying labor to some unused portion of land," but who's to say whether I'm using it or not, right?"
If you've not first made use of it then your not using it.Pretty obvious.
"Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, "
Yes.
"or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years?"
No.Not even in lockeanism.Occupancy and use is particularly opposed to this.
", but then what's to stop somebody from claiming, say, the moon, just in case his descendents ever want it? Is it like calling shotgun: you have to be close to it to call it?"
No there must be an actual link between individual(s) using the resource and the resource.
"Is there somewhere where this question is treated a little more thoroughly? And yes I recognize how impractical these questions are; just curious."
Hoppe's socialism and capitalism,Rothbard's for a new liberty, mutualism e.g. Proudhon etc(?)
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Stranger:You're approaching the problem from some abstract libertarian ethic instead of the economic nature of the problem - production of land. The question should be, how much land do you wish people to produce? If the answer is a whole continent, then you should homestead a whole continent.
Strictly speaking, land isn't produced by anyone -- unless it's reclaimed from the sea, as in the Netherlands.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
To answer the OP directly...
Stephen Adkins:Let's just say I randomly find a brand new continent (or planet, or whatever large, unclaimed area you choose). What are the limits to my homesteading it? Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just marking a map? I anticipate somebody saying "homesteading is applying labor to some unused portion of land," but who's to say whether I'm using it or not, right? Do I have to immediately use it in order to say that it's actually mine, or am I allowed to hold onto it until I'm ready to use it in 5 or 10 years? If it's really mine, it shouldn't matter what I do with it, but then what's to stop somebody from claiming, say, the moon, just in case his descendents ever want it? Is it like calling shotgun: you have to be close to it to call it? Is there somewhere where this question is treated a little more thoroughly? And yes I recognize how impractical these questions are; just curious.
Ownership isn't an inherent property of reality. There's nothing that can be said to be truly yours aside from yourself. All external ownership is a mental construct only.
That being said, the question arises: which concepts of ownership are most conducive to humanity? Libertarians argue that something can only be thought of as owned by someone when, in the first instance, he has "homesteaded" it. Well, what does "homesteaded" mean? The term comes from medieval common law (if not earlier), where a person could be said to own a vacant plot of land if he farmed it and built a house on it to live in. Later writers generalized this concept, in which case any expenditure of human activity, or labor, on something made it owned by the person who made the expenditure.
When it comes to land, however, what expenditure of labor is enough to establish ownership? Land is tricky because it's uncountable. There are no objective "land units" as there are "apple units" or even "people units". It seems, then, that one can only own land that one has somehow labored directly over.
So in the case of fencing off an area of land, one can't be said to actively establish ownership over all the land enclosed. However, fencing it off may well deter others from somehow using (part of) it. Typically such enclosures are done because the encloser wants to use the land inside.
I like to use one of the analogies I read from a daily, forgot which one, but it compared homesteading to rolling out a tarp to watch a parade. What happens if you roll out a giant tarp taking up a HUGE space for viewing the parade? People will most likely ignore your tarp and even "homestead" on top of your tarp. My guess is that would likely happen to you if you tried to fence off such an arbitrary amount of land. People will just ignore your fence and settle in around you, given you cover such a large area you probably wouldn't notice either. The only thing that would really deter people from ignoring your fence is if you have nearby facilities or obvious signs of mixed labor with the land, such as farmland or roads etc..
Thanks for all the feedback. I'll repost one of the scenarios I listed above and elaborate a bit:
"Would soil analysis on a 30,000 acre potential Jurassic Park be considered homesteading? Or would I have to fence it all in in order to have homesteaded it?"
I had just heard the Jurassic Park theme song so it was on my mind :)
But let's say I do find some island that would be a perfect fit for my theme park, and let's say that it is already owned by somebody else. If I purchase that island from that person, with the intent to first research and develop my park, and begin construction in 5 years, there is no problem, correct? I own the title to that land by virtue of having bought it from the previous owner, and as the owner I can choose to let it lie untouched for decades, if I so choose, or I can immediately make changes.
But what if we make just one change to the scenario and say that the land was unowned, and I have discovered it? Does this mean I need to rush through development and begin construction on my site NOW, just so that it's clear to everybody that I own it? That seems sort of weird to me. In other words, could one claim to be homesteading that island abstractly, by using blueprints etc to show that, yes in 6 years we will begin construction, or is homesteading by definition a physical process?
I feel like domain names might be a helpful corrollary, but I'm not exactly sure how...
You wouldn't need to rush construction necessarily, you would just have to mark the boundaries and keep them up over the 6 years. So yes, physical interaction with the land would be necessary.