What does the word "ownership" mean?
JCFolsom: What does the word "ownership" mean?
I think it has to do with when you buy a boat. A large boat.
liberty student:I think it has to do with when you buy a boat. A large boat.
Dyu harg hyuk hyuk hyuk! So FUNNY!!! FLMFAOMFer!!!
Seriously, how is ownership actually defined in Austrian or your or whatever theory, people. It's kinda important, since property is such a big dilly-o.
Homesteading?
Rothbard "describes" it as accepting these principles:
Law, Property Rights, and Air Polution
(I find myself referring to this text a lot, it really clarified property to me)
I suppose you could use the utilitarian argument reguarding markets to describe property as a concept which derives the most efficient distribution of scarce resources, however I'm more partial to the rightsist view. If I deny ownership of myself I have no just reason of proforming action, so I must own myself. If I own myself, the labor I exert should also be owned by me.
EDIT: I'm not sure I got your question right :/
If I buy a thousand acres of woodland, and don't do anything to it, not mixing any labor into the land, do I still own it?
From Human Action (Mises):
"Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a
good. This catallactic notion of ownership and property rights is not to be
confused with the legal definition of ownership and property rights as stated
in the laws of various countries." (p. 682)
From Man Economy and State (Rothbard):
"Ownership by one or more owners implies exclusive control and use of the goods owned, and the goods owned are known as property." (p.92)
So, from that definition, we can also define "partial ownership" as a "partial control" of a resource, and interventionism is in this regard a "partial ownership" of the factor of production, so then interventionism is a form of "partial socialism".
Harksaw: If I buy a thousand acres of woodland, and don't do anything to it, not mixing any labor into the land, do I still own it?
Economically speaking: Yes, if you are the one that ultimately controls its use.
From the libertarian perspective, you can see it from the legitimate claim that you have on the land originates from your production that you ultimately exchanged for the land, so you always can trace it back to a homesteaded resource (at least your own body, if nothing else).
JCFolsom: liberty student:I think it has to do with when you buy a boat. A large boat. Dyu harg hyuk hyuk hyuk! So FUNNY!!! FLMFAOMFer!!! Seriously, how is ownership actually defined in Austrian or your or whatever theory, people. It's kinda important, since property is such a big dilly-o.
Just trying to lighten the mood.
liberty student:Just trying to lighten the mood.
I know, dude. It's kewl.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to ask because I think you're mixing different issues. Anyway, if the question is whether you can claim property over homesteaders after you abandoned it, the answer is no. Of course, what constitutes abandonment is not necessarly clear and would take us to a all different discussion.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
I would say that the real world use means effective control over the utility of a good, a la Mises. But I personally define it as legitimate control over the same.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!