Ok, I have a question - having just come back from the surf...
What is the case - if someone does NOT want something to be changed / homesteaded? i.e the local surf break.
They do NOT want anyone to homestead the sand, or build objects, peers, platforms etc. that would ruin the break, waves etc.
I have heard about Block's negative homesteading (explained by him at end of Abortion lecture - but I don't think that applies)
This does have a real life application, "Kirra" used to be one a world famous beach break here in Queensland, Australia. Then dredging took place in one area, and all the sand was dumped in another place, which totally ruined the break.
How can you homestead something like the sea, or sand or ocean, so that you can claim you have "ownership of it" - mixing your labour with it, so that then - no-one else can alter it, but by your direct action, if you were to take it - it would ruin your "property"... or the thing you didn't want to change or alter.
I guess that isn't worded too correctly but I hope you get my overall point.
Whats the solution here? Thanks.
You are defining homesteading in the lockean sense of mixing one's labor with the property. Kinsella posted an article here a while back arguing that this is a flawed conception of homesteading and that the standard ought to be one of first use of the property, not mixing of one's labor with it. Does that solve your dilema?
Kinsella has mentioned before that the Relevant Technological Unit (RTU) (something Rothbard suggested in his article on air pollution) could be used as a standard for the level of change that must be wrought on a resource to bring it under one's control, but I'm not sure how that'd work with the sea. Rothbard covers homesteading the oceans in FANL for anyone interested. Been a while since I've read it though.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Here is the section from For a New Liberty where Rothbard talks about property rights for oceans, air and such.
I would be interested in a link to the Kinsella article mentioned. It seems like Rothbard here just makes an argument for private property of the seas, without explaining how it is claimed... or whatever you call it.
I see why the state leasing to polluters is awful, but I still don't understand the issue of "appropriation" or previous ownership. It is kind of my one sticking point about a stateless society (not that I disagree, but am undecided and uninformed). There are some other questions about free market environmentalism that seemed to go unanswered here recently too. The federal government owns nearly 30% of all US territory, and that probably doesn't even count states' or offshore claims.
DBratton: You are defining homesteading in the lockean sense of mixing one's labor with the property. Kinsella posted an article here a while back arguing that this is a flawed conception of homesteading and that the standard ought to be one of first use of the property, not mixing of one's labor with it. Does that solve your dilema?
Mixing labor is just a metaphor for first use, much like the invisible hand is a metaphor for economic calculation.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Jon Irenicus: Kinsella has mentioned before that the Relevant Technological Unit (RTU) (something Rothbard suggested in his article on air pollution) could be used as a standard for the level of change that must be wrought on a resource to bring it under one's control, but I'm not sure how that'd work with the sea. Rothbard covers homesteading the oceans in FANL for anyone interested. Been a while since I've read it though.
People who contest resources will know what the relevant technological unit of the resource is that they need. Then it's up to the arbitrator to decide who was there first.
In the case of the ocean this will likely imply huge ranch-like estates of ocean, but the principal difference between ocean ranching and land ranching is that to travel on the ocean you need only to be on the surface, thus not touching anyone's property. The entire ocean could be privatized without sea lanes being affected in any way.
Kinsella's mentioned it in blogposts. Rothbard explicitly mentions it in the article on the law and air pollution.
Good point.
Conza88:How can you homestead something like the sea, or sand or ocean, so that you can claim you have "ownership of it" - mixing your labour with it, so that then - no-one else can alter it, but by your direct action, if you were to take it - it would ruin your "property"... or the thing you didn't want to change or alter. I guess that isn't worded too correctly but I hope you get my overall point. Whats the solution here? Thanks.
I think the problem with your question is that you are placing too many conditions upon what constitutes homesteading.
If you are just asking "How can you homestead something like the sea?" then the answer is simple: you homestead the sea by simply declaring a certain three-dimensional area is yours. In fact, whether we recognize it or not, homesteading of the sea or "seasteading" is done all of the time whenever a vessel sails. By default, the vessel is claiming sole authority over the control of a certain physical space that just happens to be on water. Take note:
1) That space is the area occupied by the vessel.
2) That claim is constantly changing as the vessel sails.
In essence, homesteading the sea is not much of an issue. It just adds dimensions to a property claim.
Stranger:Mixing labor is just a metaphor for first use
I don't believe that's how most of Locke's readers interpret him, and I don't think it's what he meant. If Locke had meant first use he would have said first use. He meant literally mixing something you own with something unowned, and he counted labor as something you own.
Charles Anthony: If you are just asking "How can you homestead something like the sea?" then the answer is simple: you homestead the sea by simply declaring a certain three-dimensional area is yours. In fact, whether we recognize it or not, homesteading of the sea or "seasteading" is done all of the time whenever a vessel sails. By default, the vessel is claiming sole authority over the control of a certain physical space that just happens to be on water. Take note: 1) That space is the area occupied by the vessel. 2) That claim is constantly changing as the vessel sails. In essence, homesteading the sea is not much of an issue. It just adds dimensions to a property claim.
Yep. I understand the seasteading bit and the example you gave. The same would be for surfers on a wave. Whoever gets on the wave first (on the inside) has the claim to the wave... others can drop in, but then you get a conflict or breach.. etc.
I guess what I am trying to ask is: how can you rightfully defend or stop someone from altering, changing the conditions?
The only way I see that is possible is to gain the in question sea floor, land as property. Thus to homestead it - but by doing so, you directly defeat your origional goal, you have changed the conditions.
Thanks for the links etc everyone else, I will read up on those.
Marko:do now all the surfers that use that part of coast now own it together or something?
Perhaps. Or perhaps the first surfer owns it and the others need his permission to surf there. If surfing rights are the property then the next question is just what exactly does the owner/surfer own. I assume you saw the discussions about relevant technical units above.
DBratton: Stranger:Mixing labor is just a metaphor for first use I don't believe that's how most of Locke's readers interpret him, and I don't think it's what he meant. If Locke had meant first use he would have said first use. He meant literally mixing something you own with something unowned, and he counted labor as something you own.
He lived in the 17th century. He couldn't have conceived of non-material property.
DBratton: Marko:do now all the surfers that use that part of coast now own it together or something? Perhaps. Or perhaps the first surfer owns it and the others need his permission to surf there. If surfing rights are the property then the next question is just what exactly does the owner/surfer own. I assume you saw the discussions about relevant technical units above.
The way I see it... you can "own" a wave, whilst it exists and you are on it, mixing your labour with it, or using it first... The wave eventually disappears though, and so does your ownership of it.
I guess - it would be impossible to own the waves because they are forever being created and destroyed by nature. (Obviously, unless you create them, like in a man made whirlpool, but that is largely off point)
I spouse there needs to be a distinction between the ocean bottom, the sand etc and the water, waves. The surfer never does anything with the bottom or sand, only the surface water. But the surface water is affected by the sand, and ocean floor...
The surfer doesn't want to own the sand or ocean floor, he wants it to be left alone. But he can't guarentee that unless he owns it. And he can't own it, unless he destroys want he wants to save.
Or am I looking at this the wrong way, or being too predantic, pragmatic? *shrugs*
Thanks
I guess you can say the surfer might have easements from travelling certain routes in the sea often, so that if someone homesteaded/bought a particular piece of the ocean, they'd either have to buy the easement or let the surfer continue to use it. Full ownership though? Sounds unlikely, especially since courts might require greater changes (whatever the RTU is) to recognize full ownership.
Conza88:I guess what I am trying to ask is: how can you rightfully defend or stop someone from altering, changing the conditions?
That is not to say that it is easy to homestead the sea. The fact that it is a physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim my suggest that whoever has the "rightful" claim is irrelevent.
Conza88:The only way I see that is possible is to gain the in question sea floor, land as property. Thus to homestead it - but by doing so, you directly defeat your origional goal, you have changed the conditions.
I do not mean that to be dismissive of your question. What I mean to do is to point you into thinking of the problem from a different perspective.
How you enforce a claim is your problem.
DBratton: Perhaps. Or perhaps the first surfer owns it and the others need his permission to surf there. If surfing rights are the property then the next question is just what exactly does the owner/surfer own. I assume you saw the discussions about relevant technical units above.
I suppose since they were first what exactly they own is the right to surf there and the right to not have their surfing interrupted.
Right, and that's an easement.
Charles Anthony: Well, armies, air forces and navies do that all of the time. Just copy what they do.
Well, armies, air forces and navies do that all of the time. Just copy what they do.
Yes, but they break the non aggression axiom and violate property rights though... I want to be in the morally right position.
Charles Anthony:That is not to say that it is easy to homestead the sea. The fact that it is a physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim my suggest that whoever has the "rightful" claim is irrelevent.
It would be relatively easy to enforce sea steaded fisheries out in the ocean etc, with sensors etc. but I suspect you know this. I'm not sure what you are referring to as "physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim"? The claim to the waves, or the claim to the sea floor, sand etc?
Charles Anthony: ??? Why should anybody except yourself care? I do not mean that to be dismissive of your question. What I mean to do is to point you into thinking of the problem from a different perspective. How you enforce a claim is your problem.
I'm not the only person who has an interest in keeping the natural waves that form, unchanged or altered by man by dredging of the sand, or pumping of it to different areas, or dumping objects, or building peers and jetty's within the area that would ruin the break. There is probably about 30 million surfers worldwide now.
"Kirra", a world famous, quality beach that had perfect waves for miles is now nothing.. because of dredging, removal of sand.
I appreciate the different perspective... but I am wondering about how you can possibly make a claim for the sea floor, sand etc so you can rightfully leave it as it is. So you have a proper claim. Not entirely interested in how to enforce it atm, that wld be a nice next step though.
I found this article!
Better Surfing Comes with Property Rights by tag --> Bart Frazier, tag --> Posted November 1, 2007
Excerpt:
Coase and surfing
"In 1991, Ronald Coase won the Nobel Prize in economics “for his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.” In one of his seminal works, The Problem of Social Cost, he determined that as long as property rights are well-defined and it is easy to transfer property from one person to another, an efficient distribution and use of that property will result no matter whom the property rights are initially granted to. As it relates to our resource problems, the Coase Theorem tells us that once we take the first step, actually defining the rights to a resource, the “tragedy of the commons” for that resource will disappear as long as a free market exists.
We can see the Coase Theorem at work today in the world of surfing where an interesting development in property rights has recently occurred — where a resource that has traditionally been unowned is currently undergoing a positive transformation.
The world of surfing has seen an explosion in the number of people who want to surf. In the early 20th century, the only people who surfed were native Hawaiians. As tourism became an integral part of Hawaii’s economy, tourists took surfing back to California. In 1959, it is estimated there were approximately 5,000 surfers worldwide. The popularity of the movie Gidget, which was released that same year, drastically changed the landscape. By 1963, there were two million surfers, most of them in California. Today, the worldwide surfing population is estimated to be between 17 and 23 million.
That is an explosion in demand that any corporate CEO would drool over. With the number of surfers growing at an exponential rate and a limited number of waves for them to share, crowding has become a problem. The crowding occurs because no one has a right to the waves, specifically the right to prevent others from using them. It is a first-come, first-served system. In the early days of the sport, this wasn’t much of a problem: very few people were jockeying for rides. Ten people could easily share waves at a good break. Now it is not uncommon to find 50 or more people fighting for the same wave.
Things are not quite the same in Fiji though. One of the premier surfing destinations in the world is Tavarua Island Resort, which owns not only the entire island of Tavarua but also the waves that hit the island. Its waves are so good that the professional surfing tour holds an annual competition there.
Because Tavarua Island Resort and the waves that break on its shores are private property, it can offer what almost every place in the world cannot — relative solitude in prime surf. The resort limits the number of people on the island on any given day to 24. That’s it. For your money you know for a fact that there will be a maximum of 23 other people out in the water with you, and most likely fewer. If you have the cash, $3,478 to be exact, you can rent the perfect waves for a week. Twenty years ago, surfers never dreamed that such a resort could have existed. And it never would have if property rights had not evolved to include waves.
Property rights have evolved in other areas to allow efficient transactions and eliminate the commons. Oyster beds in North Carolina have made a dramatic comeback since oystermen have been allowed to claim beds for their own. The right to own big game animals in Africa has led to an exploding ecotourism industry, bringing elephants back from the brink of extinction. Property rights in conservation itself have developed as landowners sell easements against future development on their property.
As long as private individuals or companies have ownership over any resource, it is in their interest to conserve it and protect its value. That is the direction that our domestic policy should strive for — as much property as possible in the hands of the private sector and as little as possible under the control of government bureaucrats."
This; http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/786278.html , with link to a few more.
So is that the solution... re-define property rights, or use the corse theorum? Thats an exception though really, is it not? If you are to redefinre property rights, how can you properly / legitimately give property rights to the right owners, whoever that is?
Sorry, but that article falls short. I think the conclusions are right but the analysis is wrong. The author pretends to have demonstrated a re-definition of property rights to include ocean waves but in fact, he does nothing of the sort.
In the example of the resort, the property right is access to and from the island.
Conza88: Charles Anthony: Well, armies, air forces and navies do that all of the time. Just copy what they do. Yes, but they break the non aggression axiom and violate property rights though... I want to be in the morally right position.
Except, you have to pay for the army.
You have to pay them enough to make it worth their while to respect their contract with you and prevent them from becoming pirates. That is what I mean by it being a "physically difficult feat to enforce such a ridiculous claim" up above.
Conza88:I appreciate the different perspective... but I am wondering about how you can possibly make a claim for the sea floor, sand etc so you can rightfully leave it as it is. So you have a proper claim.
Marko:If we accept that however consider this, lets say there is primitive tribe somewhere which worships a certain hill near them as a deity, albeit they never actually set foot on the hill (it`s not polite to walk over god). If you can homestead through surfing, why not homesteading through worship? Why not say they now own the hill in some way?
This is the point I was trying to formulate in my mind. Worship requires a great deal of bowing, sacrificing, trips to the foot of the mountain, and so on. What about simple admiration? If I admire a tree or a body of water, then do I automatically own it? After all, I have mixed my mental labor with the body of water.
It seems like you have to do more than just mix your labor with a thing. You also have to lay claim to it, be first, and be capable of defending your claim. Assuming you are not first, you can engage in voluntary trade. The defense part is very important. If Machiavelli's Prince walks up to your surfing area, then what are you going to do? You can claim that you were there first, but the Prince will just chop your head off and claim that only those that can defend their property are the true owners.
Laying claim to a 3D section of water, sand, and sea life is one thing. Being able to defend that claim is another.
Sidenote: In China there are bathrooms where a man stands outside and collects money from the people that use it. Most tourists do not know that in many cases this man does not actually own the bathroom.
Yeah, that article did fall short...
So hoping others can weigh in on this?
The 'What's wrong with advertising on the moon?" blog.. got me thinking about this again.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010340.asp
I think the ideas of homesteading, and indeed property itself, will have to be reworked eventually.
Why anarchy fails
Conza88: Ok, I have a question - having just come back from the surf... What is the case - if someone does NOT want something to be changed / homesteaded? i.e the local surf break. They do NOT want anyone to homestead the sand, or build objects, peers, platforms etc. that would ruin the break, waves etc. I have heard about Block's negative homesteading (explained by him at end of Abortion lecture - but I don't think that applies) This does have a real life application, "Kirra" used to be one a world famous beach break here in Queensland, Australia. Then dredging took place in one area, and all the sand was dumped in another place, which totally ruined the break. How can you homestead something like the sea, or sand or ocean, so that you can claim you have "ownership of it" - mixing your labour with it, so that then - no-one else can alter it, but by your direct action, if you were to take it - it would ruin your "property"... or the thing you didn't want to change or alter. I guess that isn't worded too correctly but I hope you get my overall point. Whats the solution here? Thanks.
Well, the practical answer is:
Find geographic area, settle geographic area, and get enough guns or political clout to defend geographic area incase of attack. This is all homesteading really is.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester:Well, the practical answer is: Find geographic area, settle geographic area, and get enough guns or political clout to defend geographic area incase of attack. This is all homesteading really is.
This sounds like something a freedom and humanity hating statist would say.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: This sounds like something a freedom and humanity hating statist would say. get guns politicize claim ownership
There's a difference between recognizing it and justifying it, you know? I'm just pointing out that this, in reality, is what ownership means. There's really not another measure for it that I can see.
The government doesn't care how hard you worked for your plot of land, neither does any other group that wants what you have. They might care about the guns you have or the ability to get bigger guns to protect you, though.
Wilmot of Rochester: Find geographic area, settle geographic area, and get enough guns or political clout to defend geographic area incase of attack. This is all homesteading really is.
That is called unchallenge possession, not homesteaded ownership. It's from Roman law.
Wilmot of Rochester:There's a difference between recognizing it and justifying it, you know? I'm just pointing out that this, in reality, is what ownership means. There's really not another measure for it that I can see. The government doesn't care how hard you worked for your plot of land, neither does any other group that wants what you have. They might care about the guns you have or the ability to get bigger guns to protect you, though.
No. You are still dreadfully wrong if you think this is a worthwhile definition of ownership. Might makes right anyone?
Anyhow, I don't know the mechanics of waves well, but it seems the surfers have a claim somehow. Having evidence that certain sand bars or whatever are necessary for continued waves should go a long way in court. I think it would only mean a right to have whatever formation exist at those places, not that they be made from a solid pile of sand or X fish species not be harvested there. Sorting out property rights in the oceans can be pretty complex.
This is how I've always viewed the issue: homesteading is a matter of putting some unused identifiable pattern of property towards a certain identifiable use.
In other words, if you first use a shipping lane, others can change the property/pattern so long as they don't prevent your use of that property/pattern as a shipping lane. Others could also use it as a shipping lane, or they could fish on it, etc. They could NOT put a toll plaza on it.
Or let's say you are the first to start fishing a certain area. Others could also fish the area, so long as they did not prevent you from similar fishing experiences. This means that other fishers cannot fish in a manner where the fish population is adversely affected. Fishing licenses are designed to create this exact effect. Fish kept must be a length that ensures they are mature and have probably mated. Additionally, there are limits on how many fish any one person is allowed to keep. Homesteading in my view would seem to create the same effect, only it could be enforced by anyone, rather than just the state.
If you use a certain geographical area as an observatory, it would be a property violation for someone to put a gigantic windmill next to it, which blocks the view of the stars. Similarly, it would be a property violation to put a coal plant, etc. close enough to it to dilute the view of the stars. Yet, someone COULD put a hotdog stand next to it.
So, to answer the initial question, if you were there surfing the waves, which are a pattern of tangible property, you have a property right that no one else disrupts this pattern of nature. People could dredg under the water, so long as this didn't diminish the waves.
This creates some interesting anamolies, however. For instance, if I build a house in the middle of a forest, does this mean I own the forest, as it is being used to supply me with a nice view? I think that are reasonable claims and reasonable restraints on such.
Can airplanes fly over your home, disturbing your patternistic claim to peace-and-quiet, as well as changing your view of the sky? Surely, if such air lanes were established before your housing settlement. If vice versa, then no. Of course, what is a reasonable violation? Blocking out .0001% of the sky and causing +1 db of noise could be said to be consistent with natural phenomenon.
But there actually exists another mechanism to balancing such. Offenses would be measured in money terms. If minor violations only yeild $5 infractions, the damaged party would likely waive such. Or the offending party would license the damaged party's property for this purpose, at a cost cheaper than taking it continuously to court. This is in line with Coase.
The most basic restriction is that there is no claim to homestead property for "commercial use". This is basically claiming land/resources for no specific purpose other than to sell or rent it, which is really not use at all.
So to recap, my basic homesteading theory is that some pattern of or actual property must have identifying characteristics and it must be put to some identifiable usage. Two patterns of property and usage can occupy the same matter, so long as the new claim does not interfere with the previously claim.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Stranger: That is called unchallenge possession, not homesteaded ownership. It's from Roman law.
Seems to be the only thing that most other people really find valid. Again, I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, it just is.
E. R. Olovetto: No. You are still dreadfully wrong if you think this is a worthwhile definition of ownership. Might makes right anyone?
Well... Kind of, yeah.
A worthwhile definition? Well, define worthwhile. Is it worthwhile to define it as one thing when people really only recognize the other? Maybe it's philosophically accurate, but it certainly isn't practically relevant - at least I don't think it is in this instance.
do they find it valid? or rather, do they find it formidable?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
AJ: I think the ideas of homesteading, and indeed property itself, will have to be reworked eventually.
I some what think this aswell.. is there a book anywhere that goes into all the subtleties of homesteading / property ownership? LeFerve has one I think.. but not sure if it adequately addresses all these concerns in depth...