The theory of original appropriation, what some call homesteading, works as follows. When two parties enter into conflicting use of a scarce resource, the party which was first making use of this resource should be recognized as the true owner of this resource. The reason is that this arrangement is Pareto-efficient: the original user was making himself better off while not making anyone else worse off by using this resource, which is not the case for the second user who interfered with the first user.
With such a rule in place it becomes worthwile to invest labor and capital in the appropriation of new resources, such as for example the very capital-intensive work of oil and mineral prospecting, while creating a disencentive to interfere with resources that have already been appropriated (or prospected). The original appropriators are rewarded for bringing new resources to the marketplace. This is beneficial beyond the original meaning of homesteading, where the homesteader presumably lives off the land for himself. The entire marketplace benefits from the capital investment in the appropriation of the new resource.
The problem of original appropriation runs into complications when dealing with resources which are being used by people who do not participate in the dispute resolution process of the market society, either because they are ruled by a superstitious belief in communal property or they are simply too primitive to even understand law. In this case the appropriation of the resource for the marketplace requires the use of force, but this is no different than the force that would be employed to drive off wild animals in order to bring land into cultivation. Force must be applied because rational argument will not work.
The state of the primitive societies of America differed greatly between the parts that were colonized by the English and the Spanish. The English settlers met with small nomadic tribes who had no problem accepting valuable goods in exchange for vacating land that was of little value to them due its lack of capital investment. The English settlers paid for their land as such and colonized North America by slowly crowding out and assimilating the natives up until the formation of the United States. In Central America there existed extremely powerful empires ruling over agrarian societies with settled capital. In order to colonize this land the Spanish subjugated the rulers and easily imposed the feudal mode of land ownership on the entire country at once, establishing themselves as the new landlords. They then converted the natives, living in much greater numbers due to their practice of agriculture, to their language and religion, explaining the drastically different racial appearance of Mexicans and other Latino-Americans compared with North Americans.
In so far as the case of Latin America is concerned, it cannot be said that any of the land was "homesteaded" by rugged independent farmers. Instead colonization was done through the conquest of an empire that was undoubtedly more evil than the feudal system that replaced it. That was a much better outcome for the slave tribes of the area than the perpetuation of the primitive society. Because no one was made worse off from this transfer of scarce goods other than the perpetrators of a tyrranical system, the owners of the land up to this day can be said to have a rightful claim to it.
Of course the situation has evolved greatly since the time of America's colonization. The United States have grown from an alliance of homesteader communities to a continental and even worldwide empire which commands the right to determine the use of all land within its territory, as well as a good part of the oceans. This capital, although not directly entitled to anyone, is in the possession of a class of politicians who will not let it go back to nature. Any program of liberation of the land will involve a confrontation with this class of politician, and this confrontation will require, as in the case of prospecting for new resources, a considerable capital investment. Any of the land that is torn from the hands of the politicians will therefore immediately come into the possession of the group that has liberated it, and they will have a claim of prior use against any other. In the best case scenario the politicians will take direct payment in exchange for renouncing their claim on the resource, thus avoiding a costly fight. In that case the people who paid these politicians will have a prior claim to the resource as having been those who liberated it from the politicians, much like the Anglo-American settlers bribed the natives to leave the land they wanted to cultivate.
What this means is that true homesteading in the Anglo-American colonial sense is no longer possible in a world where the entire landmass, and most of the watermass, has been claimed by states. Instead, in order to promote the expansion of the free market society, the production of security from those states should be recognized as a legitimate form of appropriation, and there should come into existence an industry whose sole purpose is to take resources from the states and then sell them on the market. This will ensure the most rapid liberation of all of the world's scarce resources, much like colonial homesteading ensure the most rapid production of arable land.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Very good post (though I don't see any reason to cede any "legitimacy" to the state; why not acknowledge this as a purely practical matter of wresting resources from it?) It's an interesting way of looking at the problem. It'd definitely allow for a smoother transition towards anarchism than the outright collapse of the state. However, suppose that a state did simply implode; wouldn't it then allow for new resources open to homesteading? Or do you think that is highly unlikely?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I've seen governments collapse, but states, never.
Stranger, is this more Robin Hood or Calico Jack?
What I mean is, does the firm liberating resources self-direct itself in target selection (for later resale) or does it solicit resource fulfillment requests from different groups.
The difference being, the firm might target the highest (street) value target resources for resale in open bidding. Or a group might pool a reward for payment of specific goods delivered on contract. I imagine the former might include some sort of auction scheme, the latter is a private arrangement.
liberty student: Stranger, is this more Robin Hood or Calico Jack? What I mean is, does the firm liberating resources self-direct itself in target selection (for later resale) or does it solicit resource fulfillment requests from different groups. The difference being, the firm might target the highest (street) value target resources for resale in open bidding. Or a group might pool a reward for payment of specific goods delivered on contract. I imagine the former might include some sort of auction scheme, the latter is a private arrangement.
Who cares?
Stranger:In the best case scenario the politicians will take direct payment in exchange for renouncing their claim on the resource,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger:The problem of original appropriation runs into complications when dealing with resources which are being used by people who do not participate in the dispute resolution process of the market society, either because they are ruled by a superstitious belief in communal property or they are simply too primitive to even understand law. In this case the appropriation of the resource for the marketplace requires the use of force, but this is no different than the force that would be employed to drive off wild animals in order to bring land into cultivation. Force must be applied because rational argument will not work.
And this is libertarian how?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Stranger:Who cares?
Well I do. Which was why I asked. It was a sincere question about what form you saw this taking, not an attack on you or the idea, which at first glance I approve.
liberty student: Well I do. Which was why I asked. It was a sincere question about what form you saw this taking, not an attack on you or the idea, which at first glance I approve.
I really don't know. I just see that the incentive must be there to create private property other than by the colonial homesteading sense.
wombatron:And this is libertarian how?
In the same way that by libertarian standards it's legal to hit your dog.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Stranger:I just see that the incentive must be there to create private property other than by the colonial homesteading sense.
The incentive exists, or rather the incentive seems to be separate from what you are proposing. We're talking about embracing the libertarian (?) legitimacy of confiscating property from the state/public sphere and returning it to private ownership through the use of force via confrontation.
What I am wondering is, can it be justified by an ideological (Robin Hood) motive, or a pure profit motive (Calico Jack)?
The notion of aggressively taking property from aboriginal or primitive peoples can't be justified under homesteading principles. It also can't be justified under libertarian principles.
I think you were on a better approach with micro-secession than using force to take property from groups "unworthy" of holding it. Using force is a very shady proposition, unless you have something in reserve to explain the justification for it.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we have to have the original/highest/most valid claim prior to action in defense of property? I'm simply struggling with the expansionist and pseudo-imperial justification (higher purpose, better use) for confiscating pre-existing property rights.
GilesStratton: wombatron:And this is libertarian how? In the same way that by libertarian standards it's legal to hit your dog.
Now you're trolling, and it's really annoying. It's sad that people like Juan, BP and Wombatron can bring out childish behaviour almost on demand. Are you aware you have surrendered this much of your own dignity and self control?
Its just about the same argument that the worse Randroids use to justify the nuking of the Middle East. "They aren't rational, so they don't deserve to live." Using aggressive force is wrong; that is libertarianism. How is the section that I quoted not an example of aggression?
wombatron: Its just about the same argument that the worse Randroids use to justify the nuking of the Middle East. "They aren't rational, so they don't deserve to live." Using aggressive force is wrong; that is libertarianism. How is the section that I quoted not an example of aggression?
Using force is wrong when used against people who don't use force against you. Otherwise, it's necessary.
liberty student: I think you were on a better approach with micro-secession than using force to take property from groups "unworthy" of holding it. Using force is a very shady proposition, unless you have something in reserve to explain the justification for it.
A micro-secession is using force to take property from groups holding by force. We have to be clear that this is a legitimate form of creating private property.
Stranger:Using force is wrong when used against people who don't use force against you. Otherwise, it's necessary.
And how are are "people who do not participate in the dispute resolution process of the market society" using force against you?
liberty student:Now you're trolling, and it's really annoying. It's sad that people like Juan, BP and Wombatron can bring out childish behaviour almost on demand. Are you aware you have surrendered this much of your own dignity and self control?
I'm trolling?
That's interesting since most libertarians use capability of rational argumentation as a starting point for rights. Which is quite sensible since if you can't reason you're not capable of moral thought. Keep in mind in the original post Stranger made a distinction between those that can reason and those that can't. The former can be brought into the division of labour and hence aggression should not be used the latter need to be driven on the land since they only understand violence.
So cut the nonsense, if you can see where I've gone wrong, show me and I'll be happy to tell you that you were correct and I wasn't, just like in any other debate. On the other hand if you're going to rant about dignity and self control, I couldn't care less.
No, I wouldn't say so. My point is simply that there is a subjective aspect to homesteading, if people aren't aware of the concept of property it doesn't make any sense to say that they own it. In which case if they try to force you off land that you've homestead it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate.
Much in the same way that if elephants happened to use a piece of land that you desire for grazing and you homesteaded it, you'd be entitled to remove them. The point is that if you give rights to people that cannot be included in the division of labour, because of lack of the capability to argue rationally then rights should be given to animals as well.
wombatron: Stranger:Using force is wrong when used against people who don't use force against you. Otherwise, it's necessary. And how are are "people who do not participate in the dispute resolution process of the market society" using force against you?
They will jail you if you attempt to buy the properties they wield power over.
GilesStratton:That's interesting since most libertarians use capability of rational argumentation as a starting point for rights.
Who are "most libertarians"?
GilesStratton:Keep in mind in the original post Stranger made a distinction between those that can reason and those that can't.
Or rather, those who have a legitimate claim to property by our own standards, however they can't articulate it to our satisfaction. The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous. Why not drive off the deaf or mute? Are they any less moral because they might be limited in their ability to articulate? Who sets these arbitrary standards? Why does the aggressor get to choose the market court?
This is imperialism and expansion, and it's blatant. It might not be politically driven, but it has the same blatant misuse of force based upon self-styled supremacist and "greater good" notions.
Stranger put forth a sincere idea for debate, but to buy the notion of some people being less than others based upon the values of their culture, their level of technology or willingness to participate in the larger economy, undermines your own socially conservative values because to many, your culture and values are anachronistic.
GilesStratton:I'm trolling?
Yeah and it's tiresome. You're capable of more, but the attention desparate avatars and posts become old fast.
I'll support you when you're right, but not when you're undermining quality arguments with grand standing.
For every great post, you have two more that are rubbish. At one point, you're drowning yourself out. And then you start drowning evryone else out. And the discussion suffers.
liberty student:Yeah and it's tiresome. You're capable of more, but the attention desparate avatars and posts become old fast. For every great post, you have two more that are rubbish. At one point, you're drowning yourself out.
No, tiresome is this analysis. I couldn't care if you think I'm trying to grab attention or whatever else. My response to Wombatron was sincere.
liberty student:Who are "most libertarians"?
Try the majority of people on these forums. If you really think that those who are not capable of rational argumentation are capable of rights you've got some rethinking to do.
liberty student:Or rather, those who have a legitimate claim to property by our own standards, however they can't articulate it to our satisfaction. The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous. Why not drive off the deaf or mute? Are they any less moral because they might be limited in their ability to articulate? Who sets these arbitrary standards? Why does the aggressor get to choose the market court?
If you have no idea of the concept of property then you can't own property, it's that simple. As for not being able to articulate it, that's another problem entirely. One that has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve rights in the first place. The fact of the matter is that if they have the ability to reason and wish to join the division of labour they'll find a way. Both sides would be content with that since it's a great deal easier than waging war, and more importantly it's cheaper.
liberty student:Stranger put forth a sincere idea for debate, but to buy the notion of some people being less than others based upon the values of their culture, their level of technology or willingness to participate in the larger economy, undermines your own socially conservative values because to many, your culture and values are anachronistic.
This has nothing to do with values and even less to do with conservatism. You may not feel comfortable with the idea we have the right to homestead land that hasn't yet been homesteaded but is inhabitated by people who will kill you on sight and have no idea about the concept of property or rights, but that's not my issue. Libertarianism is full of issues that very few people would feel comfortable with, such as Rothbard's proposal that parents have the right to abandon their child. I, for one, find that wrong, and feel the parents have a positive obligation as a result of their own action. Most "Rothbardians" on the other hand accept that.
If land hasn't been homesteaded, and there is a subjective aspect to homesteading that is clearly missing here, I can do it. If some primitives wish to keep using the land their going to have to fight me for it or else prove that they own it legitimately.
You're equating human beings to dogs?
You're right - his reasoning is in fact identical to the reasoning Randroids use to justifying total war on civilian populations by blurring who's the initiator.
Brainpolice:You're equating human beings to dogs?
Not quite.
GilesStratton: liberty student:Now you're trolling, and it's really annoying. It's sad that people like Juan, BP and Wombatron can bring out childish behaviour almost on demand. Are you aware you have surrendered this much of your own dignity and self control? I'm trolling? That's interesting since most libertarians use capability of rational argumentation as a starting point for rights. Which is quite sensible since if you can't reason you're not capable of moral thought. Keep in mind in the original post Stranger made a distinction between those that can reason and those that can't. The former can be brought into the division of labour and hence aggression should not be used the latter need to be driven on the land since they only understand violence. So cut the nonsense, if you can see where I've gone wrong, show me and I'll be happy to tell you that you were correct and I wasn't, just like in any other debate. On the other hand if you're going to rant about dignity and self control, I couldn't care less.
You're assuming the lack of rationality of others as a reason for justifying violence. You're also making a ridiculous sweeping judgement of the capabilities of people just because you don't like their culture. It's amusing that you claim "they only understand violence" when it is you trying to justify violence.
Brainpolice:You're also making a ridiculous sweeping judgement of the capabilities of people just because you don't like their culture.
No, I'm not. You're imagining things, this would have to be settled case by case.
Brainpolice:You're assuming the lack of rationality of others as a reason for justifying violence.
I see it as the only solution. If they can't reason, there's no other way to convince them to leave the land that could be homesteaded. That's the whole point of it isn't this debate.
GilesStratton: wombatron: Its just about the same argument that the worse Randroids use to justify the nuking of the Middle East. "They aren't rational, so they don't deserve to live." Using aggressive force is wrong; that is libertarianism. How is the section that I quoted not an example of aggression? No, I wouldn't say so. My point is simply that there is a subjective aspect to homesteading, if people aren't aware of the concept of property it doesn't make any sense to say that they own it. In which case if they try to force you off land that you've homestead it's perfectly acceptable to retaliate. Much in the same way that if elephants happened to use a piece of land that you desire for grazing and you homesteaded it, you'd be entitled to remove them. The point is that if you give rights to people that cannot be included in the division of labour, because of lack of the capability to argue rationally then rights should be given to animals as well.
1. The claim that they aren't aware of the concept of property is highy dubious. Everyone intuitively has at least a basic concept of property.
2. Even if true, property rights is not based on the thoughts inside people's heads in this way. It doesn't negate property rights just because someone has or doesn't have a certain concept in their head.
3. You are diving head first into absurdity by comparing human beings to mere animals, in the attempt to justify an inconsistancy in how you apply principles to human beings. The claim that they have no rationality is also highly dubious.
Stranger: wombatron: Stranger:Using force is wrong when used against people who don't use force against you. Otherwise, it's necessary. And how are are "people who do not participate in the dispute resolution process of the market society" using force against you? They will jail you if you attempt to buy the properties they wield power over.
So your argument justifies pre-emptive force on the basis that people MIGHT jail you if you try to buy the properties they weild power over. It is not they who initiate the force, and you aren't even certain if they are threatening force. You just assume that they are a threat and thus initiate force. Walter Block's argument against pre-emptive war applies to your argument.
This has nothing to do with values and even less to do with conservatism. You may not feel comfortable with the idea we have the right to homestead land that hasn't yet been homesteaded but is inhabitated by people who will kill you on sight and have no idea about the concept of property or rights, but that's not my issue. Libertarianism is full of issues that very few people would feel comfortable with, such as Rothbard's proposal that parents have the right to abandon their child. I, for one, find that wrong, and feel the parents have a positive obligation as a result of their own action. Most "Rothbardians" on the other hand accept that. If land hasn't been homesteaded, and there is a subjective aspect to homesteading that is clearly missing here, I can do it. If some primitives wish to keep using the land their going to have to fight me for it or else prove that they own it legitimately.
Your assumption that the land hasn't been homesteaded makes no sense. Yes, the land has been homesteaded by those who currently occupy it. Unless you have some whacky notion of what constitutes homesteading that most libertarians have no idea about.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:You're also making a ridiculous sweeping judgement of the capabilities of people just because you don't like their culture. No, I'm not. You're imagining things, this would have to be settled case by case. Brainpolice:You're assuming the lack of rationality of others as a reason for justifying violence. I see it as the only solution. If they can't reason, there's no other way to convince them to leave the land that could be homesteaded. That's the whole point of it isn't this debate.
It seems to me that you are the one out of anyone incapable of reasoning here, since you're trying to justify initiating violence, and your assumption that others lack the ability to reason appears to be based on little more than an arbitrary racism.
Brainpolice:It seems to me that you are the one out of anyone incapable of reasoning here,
Now, now, behave.
Brainpolice:since you're trying to justify initiating violence, and your assumption that others lack the ability to reason appears to be based on little more than an arbitrary racism.
Arbitrary racism? My argument would apply just as much to a white person as it does to a black, so stop the race baiting.
Brainpolice:Your assumption that the land hasn't been homesteaded makes no sense. Yes, the land has been homesteaded by those who currently occupy it. Unless you have some whacky notion of what constitutes homesteading that most libertarians have no idea about.
Now, I'm taking this from Roderick Long as well as Kinsella and Hoppe, he claims (correctly) that there is a subjective element to homesteading. You have to have some idea of the notion of property and rights if you're to possess them. The fact is these primitives don't have that.
Brainpolice:1. The claim that they aren't aware of the concept of property is highy dubious. Everyone intuitively has at least a basic concept of property.
Perhaps, but that misses the point anyway, these individuals haven't consciously homesteaded the land and don't have any conception of it as their property. Which is what matters.
Brainpolice:2. Even if true, property rights is not based on the thoughts inside people's heads in this way. It doesn't negate property rights just because someone has or doesn't have a certain concept in their head.
Yes, and yet their is a subjective element in regards to homesteading.
Brainpolice:3. You are diving head first into absurdity by comparing human beings to mere animals, in the attempt to justify an inconsistancy in how you apply principles to human beings. The claim that they have no rationality is also highly dubious.
They may have the capability. That doesn't mean they're willing to attempt rational argumentation with you, nor does it mean they use this capability.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Your assumption that the land hasn't been homesteaded makes no sense. Yes, the land has been homesteaded by those who currently occupy it. Unless you have some whacky notion of what constitutes homesteading that most libertarians have no idea about. Now, I'm taking this from Roderick Long as well as Kinsella and Hoppe, he claims (correctly) that there is a subjective element to homesteading. You have to have some idea of the notion of property and rights if you're to possess them. The fact is these primitives don't have that.
What "primitives" are you talking about? To my knowledge, the fact is that EVERYONE has some concept of property. It's something intuitively learned from childhood. The basic concepts of "mine" and "yours" is universally understood. The fact is that everyone does, to one degree or another, possess them, and most people simultaneously do not have a fully comprehensive understanding of them.
Also, I'm coming from the perspective that rights are norms we apply to human beings, not specific classes. To my knowledge, libertarianism proposes normative rights-concepts for human beings. There is no grand requirement other than being a human being (which inherently implies the capacity of rationality). The use of the capacity of rationality as a prerequisite for rights, as I understand it, simply means that the rationality that ALL HUMANS possess is part of the pretext for the formation of rights. It is not meant to be an exclusive thing where we separate people into different classes either deserving or undeserving of rights. Rationality, in this sense, only refers to a fundamental capacity that we all share by virtue of being humans. It is NOT meant to imply that we can magically exclude certain groups from libertarian norms.
Again, your claim is dubious. It is simply an arbitrary assertion on your part that they dont have any conception of it as their property. If they didn't, they wouldn't try to defend it to begin with. The mere fact that they try to defend it would seem to indicate that they do concieve of it as property. Furthermore, what do you mean "conciously homesteaded"? What's the alternative? To "unconciously homestead"?
I'm not aware of any class of humans, language barriers aside, unwilling or unable to engage in argumentation. What group of humans are you really talking about? You're talking in some fairly broad abstractions here.
Brainpolice:What "primitives" are you talking about? To my knowledge, the fact is that EVERYONE has some concept of property.
I'm not going to get sidetracked by a debate as to whether or not people do intuitively learn it from childhood. Although, that begs that question as to how their parents learnt it to relate it to them, or at least assumes that they live in a society in which property ownership is normal. The position I'm debating is contingent on that not being the case.
Brainpolice:The basic concepts of "mine" and "yours" is universally understood.
No, not necessarily. In fact in many primitive communities there is no concept whatsoever of yours or mine, only ours. Moreover, property rights may only be necessary when there is scarcity, if this doesn't appear due to very low populations there may be no need for it. Once again, if these people can demonstrate a coherent understanding of property, or that it is the case that the subjective aspect of homestead has been fulfilled, I don't disagree with you.
Brainpolice:Also, I'm coming from the perspective that rights are norms we apply to human beings, not specific classes.
And why, tell me, are human beings eligible for rights and no other species?
Brainpolice:(which inherently implies the capacity of rationality).
It being implied in their being human isn't sufficient, they have to demonstrate that they are capable of rational argumentation. I'd agree with you that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean that they're always capable of rational argumentation.
libery student:The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous.
Why not drive off the deaf or mute?
Who sets these arbitrary standards ?
This is imperialism and expansion, and it's blatant.
Juan: Not only primitives will be driven off. We libertarians will also get rid of homosexuals, drug users, people who drink more than a glass of wine per day (for the sake of consistency I hope), heretics (libertarianism requires revealed religion), niggers, asians and any other sub-standard human beings, and so on and so forth.
These people are perfectly able to participate in a market society. Using force against them makes no economic sense.
Juan: libery student:The notion of driving the "primitive" off like wild animals is quite frankly, ridiculous. Not only primitives will be driven off. We libertarians will also get rid of homosexuals, drug users, people who drink more than a glass of wine per day (for the sake of consistency I hope), heretics (libertarianism requires revealed religion), niggers, asians and any other sub-standard human beings, and so on and so forth. Why not drive off the deaf or mute? Right. They will be dealt with, too, don't worry. Who sets these arbitrary standards ? Oh, come on. There's nothing arbitrary about revealed conservatism This is imperialism and expansion, and it's blatant. This is value free economics. What ? You don't understand economics ?
Juan:They undermine the conservative principles of a market society. They should be banned in the name of economic efficiency.
Rotten bait is rotten.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict