Eugene:That's right, you lease the land from society, that is from anyone else who wants to use the land. After all what gives you the right to exclude other people from using valuable natural resources? You gain this right only if you were the first one to use the resource yourself. But if you stopped using the resource you lose the right to exclude others from using it. I think it makes sense, don't you think?
Why wouldn't that logic be applied to all property?
I have said multiple times that areas of land cannot be owned, so they surely wouldn't decide who will own the land
But land is owned right now. So can not own land is incorrect because it is already occurring. If you said I do not think that people should own land or are able to own land because X. That would be different. But to say land can not be owned is to say that it is impossible for land to be owned. Which as we can currently observe, is incorrect.
@ Jack Roberts
"But land is owned right now."
I highly doubt that is the case. I have a strong belief if anyone actually pulls out a deed and reads it they will find out the document in their possession is a border contract. Everything legal is artificial. The artificial is not a par with the organic. A border is an artificial construct whereas dirt is real. A bundle of property rights is an artificial construct whereas Men and Women are real.
To elaborate further [from a U.S. perspective] take a look at any state constittuion and you will discover that is where borders are defined. A deed specifies a subset of a border "within" a state border. "Within" a border is a limit of jurisdiction. As far as jurisdiction goes a Man [created by God as the theory goes] standing on a given location of land may or may not be "within" the jurisdiction of a border whereas a person [created by legislatures] is at all times "within" a border and must reside "within" a border.
Minarchist: Eugene:That's right, you lease the land from society, that is from anyone else who wants to use the land. After all what gives you the right to exclude other people from using valuable natural resources? You gain this right only if you were the first one to use the resource yourself. But if you stopped using the resource you lose the right to exclude others from using it. I think it makes sense, don't you think? Why wouldn't that logic be applied to all property?
Because areas of land cannot be property. Property is products of labor, areas are not.
But land is owned right now. So can not own land is incorrect because it is already occurring.
Are you really so malevolent, or so lazy to think? It is clear that I am not talking about de facto reality but about legitimacy.
If you said I do not think that people should own land or are able to own land because X.
It is not an opinion, it a fact that areas of land cannot be LEGITIMATE property, because property comes into being by mixing labor into recourses and thereby removing them from their state of nature, and areas of land are outise the category of property.
@stsoc
"It is not an opinion, it a fact that areas of land cannot be LEGITIMATE property, because property comes into being by mixing labor into recourses and thereby removing them from their state of nature, and areas of land are outise the category of property."
Please explain the result of mixing labor [e.g. performing a survey] with nature? Is the answer a border, which is property, that can thereby be owned according to your own definition of "legitimate"?
Here's an example. You take a rock, break a branch, use the rock to shape the branch to make a club, and voila- an act of original appropriation. You have the title of ownership (the right to exclusive use) over that club until you transfer it to someone else or declare it unowned.
I asked a specific question and I am not interested in some bullshit tangent anology. If you want to have an earnest discussion answer the fucking difficult questions posed. Evolution of truth is a process that involves fellowship and discussion. I am interested in truth and am willing to partake in the fellowship and discussion. If you are not interested in truth and simply have an agenda or point to make I could give a shit less about conversing with you. Feel free to remain in a state of ignorance.
It is not an opinion, it a fact that areas of land cannot be LEGITIMATE property
@LFOD
Your question is idiotic because by doing a survey you don't mix labor with anything.
"products" are the output of labor, capital, and material. "property" is something that belongs to someone.
Property comes into existence as a product of labor and something that isn't a product of labor cannot be property.
legitimacy is an opinion.
Legitimacy is correctness of opinion.
@stsc
But you did not say that, although i thought you were trying to take that angle but your language was saying that it is impossible to own land. Your argument is that you think it is illegitimate to own land because you think that people can only own land that they have laboured with. This is fine you can think this and i realy do understand what you think on this topic, but everyone else will continue to own land.
Regardless of the title deed people will still defend the land that they think they own and will claim ownership of it. So I don't think we can realy get away with talking about the legitimacy of land ownership as that is no different than talking about the legitimacy of ownership itself. Even if the current land ownership has been distorted by the government, it is still a reality. We have arrived at the point as a result of conflict over land for thousands of years.
The problem is not ownership of land in general but the government's distortion of land ownership.
Land cannot be owned, and therefore it cannot be alienated (tranfered into ownership of another).
So communes, democratic or otherwise, own nothing. Thanks for solving this problem. Bye.
If you stop using the land for anything, but just hold it to wait until it increases in value, that should be illegal. You acquired the right to exclude others from using the land because you used it for growing vegetables, but if you stopped growing vegetables on the land, you lose this right, which was given to you in the first place on the condition that you use the land.
There is an amount of sense in that, but the concept of "use" is very broad and does not necessarily entail direct usage. Nor does the objective link created by first-use simply vanish if you do not use something for a few minutes, days or months, say. Abandoned resources certainly will become free once more to appopriate.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Ok now I would like to see you do the same for an Intel Microchip I7 or a 50" plasma tv.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/Material/revimages/cpu/Core_I7_965/New_Core_I7.jpg http://www.our-picks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/panasonic-tc-p50x1.jpg
This is fine you can think this and i realy do understand what you think on this topic, but everyone else will continue to own land.
That doesn't make them right. And they will continue only untill socialist is established.
lf. Even if the current land ownership has been distorted by the government, it is still a reality.
Descriptivity has nothing to with normativity. Murder happening and being a reality doesn't make it legitimate.
Land cannot be ownership.
So communes, democratic or otherwise, own nothing.
There is absolutely no way this can in any way be related to my words you quoted. Maybe you wanted to quote something else, I don't know, but this doesn't make any sense.
but the concept of "use" is very broad and does not necessarily entail direct usage.
Use doesn't entail usage. Wow.
That has to anything to do with that? Microchips and TVs are not products of labor? They are not made out of recourses that have been removed from their state of nature by mixing labor in them? What's whit comments that don't have anything to do with the messages you're replying to, is that some sort of an inside joke here?
It relates directly to the fact that your communes have absolutely no ground to stand on without the concept of ownership.
The difference being, what?
Hey and as for land not being able to be "ownership", whatever the fuck that means, Why can it not be owned?
The reply is idiotic because the last time I seen a survey performed they hand you a piece of paper with a bunch of symbols on it. Since neither the piece of paper or symbols spontaneously appeared I am going to safely presume labor was mixed with nature.
Even in your example of making a club, what evidence do you have the club is yours beyond possession of it? Its all claims. Property, rights, ownership. . . every single last bit of it is nothing more than a claim or an assertion.
You make comments such as it is impossible to own areas of land or land can't be owned or however you word it. The fact of the matter is that anything can be claimed by anyone at any given point in time therefore anything can allegedly be owned by anyone at any given point in time. The only issue is what claims are going to be recognized by the majority of force because in nature that is the only opinion that counts.
Libertarians [left leaning & right leaning] and statists [left of center & right of center] are two sides of the same interventionist coin. All agree that there must be intervention against the system of nature because the system of nature allegedly won't work for purposes of commerce.
Property that "comes into existence as a product of labor and something . . ." is just one definition. Everything about property is just a definition because Man thought the entire concept of property up. We pulled the notion out of our ass. Property ownership is a fiction and intervention against nature. It is an abstract concept. The point being. . . that the whole notion of something Man made up out of thin air can't be this or can't be that is utter BS. It can be anything Man wants it to be. The only thing that is relevant to why some abstract concept should mean this or that is whether it leads to more satisfaction or less satisfaction. The only defintions that are ultimately recognized as valid are those that obtain consensus from a majority of force in nature.
Since human farming has been the most profitable farming in recorded history the historical record is crytal clear human productivity and satisfaction is directly proportionate to perceived choice. If you are arguing a choice "cannot" be made, I would say the burden of proof is on you to illustrate lack of a specific choiice will increase productivity and satisfaction which you have not addressed.
I think the austrian argument is reasonable. Violence, an absense of choice, decreases productivity and satisfaction so when there is a right to exlcude no one can "legitimately" use violence to acquire the same resource. You are in part agreement but with regards to "large areas of land" you propose to replace the simplicity of title with a complex set of rules defining legitimate use, occupancy, and abandonement.
Beyond the philosphical circle jerk on the semantics of property what I really find disingenuous about the whole can't own large areas of land is that developers provide a valuable service in the market and if the costs developing large tracts of land into smaller plots wasn't so heavily regulated and inflated there would not be as many Americans sitting upside down in their real estate.
With regards to:
"Property comes into existence as a product of labor and something that isn't a product of labor cannot be property.'
A border is a product of labor but like all property it is not nearly as important that a border is property if the border [e.g. property] is not recognized as valid by a majority of force.
I think as far as abandonment goes, the property occupier/owner/tiller of the land must be able to enforce or at least inform others that the piece of land he is occupying is his.
Ergo
If i a person occupies/owns/tills/mixes his labor with the land, and leaves it be for a x amount of time "abandoning" it, he must put a post, sign, or tell others that it is his land.
So if i try to occupy his tilled land he must enforce his ownership, and refuse my useage of the land, or allow me to use it, or allow a transfer of ownership (buying), the land.
So therefore, its not a matter of x amount of days weeks or months that the land becomes unowned, it doesnt matter how many days weeks or months pass before the land gets worked on again.
What matters is the property owner's ability to enforce his claim upon the land.
Ststoc, do you have any personal belongings? Do not these belongings occupy a certain amount of space? If you own these belongings, aren't you owning the space that it occupies also? So if i own a piece of dirt, i am also owning the space it occupies: land.
Land is just like any other good to come by in my opinion, like gold, silver, trees, fruits, anything that comes out of the earth.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
land cannot be owned unless you mix your labor with, so unoless you pee on every tree or use that tree in some way, any tree on your property can be cut down by someone who wants to own that tree or the space the tree was in.
if you want to own a rainforest, you must cut down that rainforest
another method could be flying and droping chemicals all over a area, would water work as laboring the land.
if you start to till 5 acres, 4 other people can start tilling spots you have not tilled and box you in to the 20 feet or whatever the size of your machine