I know this was discussed many times, but I'd appreciate if you could oblige me in another discussion. I recently thought of the following. If a group of people decides to fence off a land for which there is no other claimant, this might very well be a legitimate homesteading act. States are similar in nature. A certain area was fenced off, and thus legitimately acquired by the government. If we ignore the wars and oppressions commited in order to achieve this initial ownership, and if we ignore the the minorities who did not consent to be subjected to the state, we might very well think of the state as a legitimate entity.
Since the original inhabitants of the lands do not exist anymore, United States could be said to be owned by the American people in general. The homesteading process allows people to fence off, even a very big area. So is the United States or any other country is at least partially legitimate in your view?
Is that what the government did - fencing off area? Or is it more like it told people that if they did not hand it over they would come over with guns. Sort of like the American Revolution...
If we ignore the wars and oppressions commited in order to achieve this initial ownership, and if we ignore the the minorities who did not consent to be subjected to the state, we might very well think of the state as a legitimate entity.
Why not ignore the moral standard by which you are judging the state's legitimacy? Then there'd be nothing wrong with states at all!
I think he means looking at the cases where that was not done, those cases were legitimate.
No, the United States nor any other country is legitimate in the least in my view.
I understand your reasoning on how you demonstrate a hypothetical rightful ownership by the government. Even if we ignore the wars and oppressions, I still reject it that explanation of rightful ownership. Homesteading sounds good from a utilitarian sense but as far as I am concerned, homesteading of the past does not trump the injustice of slavery/taxation in the present.
In other words, just because you are the rightful owner of a land mass, it is morally incorrect to force people to pay taxes to you if they were born there.
It's your property... they can pay up or leave.
it can only work with monarchy, not democracy, in my humble opinion...
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Wheylous: It's your property... they can pay up or leave.
only if there was a contract. They are not "intruders" of any kind. Keep that in mind too :)
What can?
Playing devil's advocate a bit... Are you saying that if my tenent's kids were born in the house that I own, they don't need to pay rent when they grow up?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:Playing devil's advocate a bit... Are you saying that if my tenent's kids were born in the house that I own, they don't need to pay rent when they grow up?
No, because they weren't party to the agreement between you and the tenant. If you want to (legitimately) charge them rent when they grow up, you'll need to make a new agreement with them. On the other hand, you're also not obligated to let them live in your house for free when they grow up.
Edit: I think an important distinction to make here is between the existence of a prima facie obligation and the lack thereof. My point above is that the tenant's kids aren't obligated to pay you rent simply by virtue of being his kids. But you're free to charge them rent if they want to stay in your house.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
They are not "intruders" of any kind. Keep that in mind too :)
So people on my property are not intruders? I do not have the power to remove them from my land?
Eugene:Since the original inhabitants of the lands do not exist anymore, United States could be said to be owned by the American people in general. The homesteading process allows people to fence off, even a very big area. So is the United States or any other country is at least partially legitimate in your view?
In my opinion, homesteading does not involve wars or oppressions - the very things you propose we ignore in this thread.
Once upon a time, there were kinship groups which could be said to own areas of land more or less jointly among their members. I think this, combined with wars and oppressions, is the origin of the state.
I think an important distinction to make here is between the existence of a prima facie obligation and the lack thereof. My point above is that the tenant's kids aren't obligated to pay you rent simply by virtue of being his kids. But you're free to charge them rent if they want to stay in your house.
You are completely correct, of course. I honestly thought the distiction was implied, but rereading my post, it wasn't. I ought to have added, "if they choose to continue living in my house," or some such. Just because you were born on my land does not mean you have the right to stay on my land rent free.
According to Rothbard's theory of homesteading the Government didn't homestead the land and those who did homestead the land did not give or sell the land to the government and therefore it is illegitimate.
I'm not sure how much of Rothbard's theory that I buy but I certainly don't consider something as ridiculous as government legitimate. Even if it were homesteaded or donated to I wouldn't consider something as large, involuntary, idle, and harmful as the state to be legimitmate in most places.
But that's a very utilitarian analysis. If it acquired the land by legitimate means, then it is legitimate. Now, if it unreasonably violated the NAP to get people off of its land, then it's bad. But that's not the case.
Wheylous: But that's a very utilitarian analysis. If it acquired the land by legitimate means, then it is legitimate.
But that's a very utilitarian analysis. If it acquired the land by legitimate means, then it is legitimate.
Legitimacy is subjective and due to the inherently subjective nature of morality itself at some point almost everyone will consent to some sort of utilitarianism.
Wheylous:Now, if it unreasonably violated the NAP to get people off of its land, then it's bad. But that's not the case.
The demanding of duties for an extended period of time with no sort of contract or spoken agreement would probably be considered illegitimate by an independent arbitrator, another thing which the state refuses to give. Furthermore my analysis is independent of the NAP.
With all this being said I am not a utilitarian.
This is just one of a million other ways to try to say "national borders = property lines" and it's just not true. No matter how you phrase the issue, no matter what "angle" you take, national borders are not property lines and the unique powers of the State (judge, punish, tax) are necessarily immoral.
Clayton -
The demanding of duties for an extended period of time with no sort of contract or spoken agreement would probably be considered illegitimate by an independent arbitrator
You remaining on their property is illegitimate. In fact, you also bring more and more products onto their property and you keep exiting and entering their property (such as public roads, if we assume those to be obtained in legitimate ways).
Wheylous: The demanding of duties for an extended period of time with no sort of contract or spoken agreement would probably be considered illegitimate by an independent arbitrator You remaining on their property is illegitimate. In fact, you also bring more and more products onto their property and you keep exiting and entering their property (such as public roads, if we assume those to be obtained in legitimate ways).
That doesn't make you their slave, at some point individual property rights must be considered respectable upon the lands of others when there is no spoken agreement that the continual use and improvement of X for decades constitutes duties from group Z, especially when the way that it is handled is through direct violence and imprisonment, not "get off my land".
And once again we're living in the perfect libertarian paradise again.
So since you consider the state borders not legitimate, will you also object to distributing the lands to the citizens? Do you think the 300 million Americans can't be the rightful owners of all the territory inside the United States borders?
Wheylous: They are not "intruders" of any kind. Keep that in mind too :) So people on my property are not intruders? I do not have the power to remove them from my land?
only if they came on your property (keep in mind that I don't believe in absolute land ownership) without your approval of some kind. Anyway, I can't see anywhere a real world example of such issue. It's kinda as useless as life-boat situations...
House is yours because you use it, it has clear boundaries etc. Land is yours only if you use it (homesteading etc.), but USA (or whole America continent) is not yours, just like Columbus couldn't have claimed whole continent just because he first homsteaded a little tiny piece of it.
Eugene: So since you consider the state borders not legitimate, will you also object to distributing the lands to the citizens? Do you think the 300 million Americans can't be the rightful owners of all the territory inside the United States borders?
not directed to me, but I will answer to the second question.
They can. But if it's possible to find the previous legitimate owner or his heirs... then they are fucked.
Wheylous:It's your property... they can pay up or leave.
I am telling you that I disagree with it. I believe that the birth of NEW people who did not choose to enter your property mystically trumps your conception of property rights and what constitutes tresspassing. I believe those new people have every moral right to squat on your land as they see fit and to defend with deadly force their intentions to do so.
Here we are with two different opinions on the morality of the matter. If you are looking for Austiran economics or libertarian theory or science or any universally objective truth to prove one of us right and the other wrong, you will never find it because it does not exist. We are disputing over a different set of preferences.
We could be practical, though. We could look at you having to expend resources to defend yourself against the constant random threat of an insurrection from people who believe as I do.
JackCuyler: Charles Anthony: In other words, just because you are the rightful owner of a land mass, it is morally incorrect to force people to pay taxes to you if they were born there. Playing devil's advocate a bit... Are you saying that if my tenent's kids were born in the house that I own, they don't need to pay rent when they grow up?
Charles Anthony: In other words, just because you are the rightful owner of a land mass, it is morally incorrect to force people to pay taxes to you if they were born there.
I realize that my reply seems to run counter to the situation laid out by the OP but that is only because your analogy is not analogous enough. There is nothing logically wrong with me making exceptions to rules.
JackCuyler:Just because you were born on my land does not mean you have the right to stay on my land rent free.
However, maybe God wants us all to intuitively share the land. Maybe God created man and nature such that people who believe in such strict objective rules governing the rightful ownership of property and whether children born on their land could rightfully be evicted if they did not pay rent (or whatever else we are trying to hypothetically figure out) to be forever lost in chaotic mental contortions of morality that see no end. Whereas people who intuitively believe that the Earth's bounty should be shared have a more peaceful walk towards freedom. Just a thought.
However, maybe God wants us all to intuitively share the land.
Whee, let's introduce God and throw all rationalization out the window because God said this is what we must do and we must do it!! Now, I'm a believing Christian, but I see a problem whenever God is brought into politics, as I see the argument like this:
Me: We should do A B and C because they are logical and follow from these axioms You: But God said we shouldn't do B and C, only A and D Me: Well, then, I guess we've gotta do what you say since you're God's prophet... : |
Me: We should do A B and C because they are logical and follow from these axioms
You: But God said we shouldn't do B and C, only A and D
Me: Well, then, I guess we've gotta do what you say since you're God's prophet... : |
Unless God tells me this or we have a prophet come down and tell us, I like to stick to a more earthly view on political theory.
And intuitively sharing the land implies no real property rights. You argue that newly born people on other people's property have the moral-legal right to claim people's property. But why do you limit this power to only newly born people? Heck, why not anyone ever? Screw property altogether, let everyone do whatever as long as they don't violate self-ownership!
Now, this argument I cannot answer, as I have not read up on property rights. And yes, hashem, I will read that article you so consistently propose :P
Charles Anthony:We could be practical, though. We could look at you having to expend resources to defend yourself against the constant random threat of an insurrection from people who believe as I do.
Is this an appeal to force or an appeal to (adverse) consequences?
Charles Anthony:Practically, they would conceivably need to pay rent if you forced them to do so but at the same time, you would have to pay for evicting them if they refused which could get very expensive.
Same questions apply here.
you would have to pay for evicting them
Is this in line with some geolibertarian beliefs?
Autolykos, What do you mean by an appeal? I am not asking anybody to do anything other than to recongize that if they poke a sleeping bear with a stick, they should expect the bear to wake up and attack. I am just stating what is a real hypothetical possibility in the hypothetical situation spelled out in the OP. If I was in the shoes of the hypothetical property owner in question, I would bet that none of these tenants would be too pleased with how I treated them and I would expect them to demonstrate their displeasure with force.
As far as I am concerned, the nature of the hypothetical land-lord as described in the OP is treating people like animals and what I describe is how animals behave.
Wheylous:Unless God tells me this or we have a prophet come down and tell us, I like to stick to a more earthly view on political theory.
For most of my adult life, I've been a renter. Would you say that I've necessarily been treated like an animal there?
Did you enjoy it?
I preferred it to the alternatives - otherwise I wouldn't have rented at all, now would I?
But you were forced to rent!
MaikU, if the United States government can distribute all empty American lands to the 300 million American citizens, who else can contend? These are empty lands.
If they're empty, gasp, no one homesteaded them! No one actually put them to use. So there is a problem. Just like the US can't give away the moon, for example.
But they were homesteaded because fences were errected in all the borders of the U.S.
That's not a complete condition for homesteading. There must also be a use of the land. Otherwise you can put a fence around the earth going through the prime meridian and argue that both sides of the fence are yours :P Ok, that's a bit silly, but fencing off without use is not homesteading.
The fence example is wrong since parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.However if I fence a virgin land that no one cares for, then I do believe its just. After all no one claims the land besides me.
1) They didn't fence it. People just de-facto built their own fences so that there is a fence there by chance.
2) They never used the land.
1. The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences, so it was homesteaded by someone.
2. Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading. You can homestead land to build a mall 5 years later for instance.
parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.
And a lot of parts don't. Now what?
The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences
Proof?
Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading.
At the very least intention to use the land. Even if the Ultimate Fence you claim exists around the US, it was not created to homestead the land.