So I have a problem with natural resource monopolies and reconciling that with a mans right to live. I just take land for example usually. I would say that its consistent to believe that a man has a right to the 3 dimensional space he inhabits and some amount extra. Its this extra amount that bugs me. My current answer is that if there was 1 human on earth he is entitled to the earth, two humans 1 is entitled to half, and so on. This ignores the fact that some humans have more ambition and also some are more beneficial to others. So maybe one guy would want a house and a factory because he has that amount of energy. I don't think the fact that you came first override this basic minimum of space each human requires. The fact that you came first does keep people from taking your minimum space though. What do you guys think? Its just a huge gordian knot to me :(
I think your argument doesn't make sense. If there are two people in the world, why are they entitled to precisely half of the world? If there are six billion, why should each individual be entitled to 1/6 billionth of the world? What is the ethical basis for your argument?
Political Atheists Blog
Well the equal shares was just my first stab at it. I think my main thrust is that you can't encroach on each mans minimum space required for life and sanity. The ethical basis is just the nature of property. Your property is what you have created. The earth wasn't made by humans so you can't really lay claim to more land than you need. In other words I think its unethical to allow a complete land monopoly on all of earths land. Where one guy could have it all in his possession when others are around. Denying a person this is condemning him to slavery or death it seems. I could be completely off base I don't know.
So we must ask permission from all the future generations? From people who don't even exist yet?
Hoppe and Rothbard have dealt with this nonsense already.
I was thinking more about people that are just turning an age where they would like to strike out on their own. If there is no unowned land available and there is none for purchase, then you would agree they are not completely free right? They are in effect a permanent renter until someone decides to sell if ever, in other words a slave. I'm not drawing issue with where a person would build a house or a factory, but rather where they put their fence line. If the entire world is wall to wall houses then I guess new people are out of luck, but I see it as unfair to arbitrarily put a fence wherever you like.
twistedbydsign99: I was thinking more about people that are just turning an age where they would like to strike out on their own. If there is no unowned land available and there is none for purchase, then you would agree they are not completely free right? They are in effect a permanent renter until someone decides to sell if ever, in other words a slave. I'm not drawing issue with where a person would build a house or a factory, but rather where they put their fence line. If the entire world is wall to wall houses then I guess new people are out of luck, but I see it as unfair to arbitrarily put a fence wherever you like.
They own themselves, that's all the space you need to earn property.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
twistedbydsign99:I was thinking more about people that are just turning an age where they would like to strike out on their own. If there is no unowned land available
What reason wouldn't there be? That's a very bold presumption.
twistedbydsign99:and there is none for purchase, then you would agree they are not completely free right?
Of course they are. You've bought in to the same garbage idea as "a hungry man isn't free". Of course he is, and of course the person would be free.
Further, why wouldn't someone be willing to sell? I see no reason for your presumptions.
Knight_of_BAAWA: twistedbydsign99:I was thinking more about people that are just turning an age where they would like to strike out on their own. If there is no unowned land available What reason wouldn't there be? That's a very bold presumption. twistedbydsign99:and there is none for purchase, then you would agree they are not completely free right? Of course they are. You've bought in to the same garbage idea as "a hungry man isn't free". Of course he is, and of course the person would be free. Further, why wouldn't someone be willing to sell? I see no reason for your presumptions.
In any case the only alternative is forcing somebody to sell (or otherwise give away) their land, but then, isn't slavery what we're trying to avoid?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I agree with that, you have a good point. It wouldn't be ethical the other way either, to force someone to give up the land they already own. So I guess I have finally distilled this down to what I was thinking, that building a fence does not count as mixing your labor :) I can't fence in north america and be like "mine at last!" Even assuming its all unowned, I would think you would have to undertake more effort than that to own something.