Austrianism and libertarianism talk about the right to property. The idea that it is a "right" would mean that it exists independent of government. But how does this right work out without government?
Let's say the first human to come to North America claimed it all for himself. He hasn't even seen most of it, but he's the first guy there. Does he now have a right to it all? If somebody else lands on the other side of the continent and claims the half he lands on, has he violated the rights of the first person?
Would it make a difference if he had explored all of North America on his own?
If you can't control it, is it still yours, even without a government to keep record of it being yours? What is the fundamental difference between posession and ownership?
There are many differing views on this. Many libertarians and ancaps go with John Locke's approach, which was, you can't just 'claim' it - you have to 'mix labor' with it. So if your guy showed up in NA and found nobody was 'working' the land, he could plant it and farm it and it would thereby become his property. He could build a factory on it and it would thereby become his property. Etc. The more he could work, the more would be his.
Of course, some anarchists reject private property altogether.
You may be interested in this essay:
Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government (Benson)
And in this one:
The Ethics and Economics of Private Property (Hoppe)
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
A right is supposedly what a government is meant to protect, not to bring it into existence. Even the establishment of a government presupposes the right to contract. Bear in mind the Hobbesian notion of a social contract falls flat on its face on Hobbes' very premises, i.e. that in the so-called 'state of nature' no promises will be adhered to (hence his social contract is baseless.) It is what any legal system, to be just, must recognize. Governments, should they exist at all, enforce rights; they do not create them.
Harksaw:Austrianism and libertarianism talk about the right to property. The idea that it is a "right" would mean that it exists independent of government. But how does this right work out without government?Let's say the first human to come to North America claimed it all for himself. He hasn't even seen most of it, but he's the first guy there. Does he now have a right to it all? If somebody else lands on the other side of the continent and claims the half he lands on, has he violated the rights of the first person?Would it make a difference if he had explored all of North America on his own? If you can't control it, is it still yours, even without a government to keep record of it being yours? What is the fundamental difference between posession and ownership?
Rights are established through arbitration by mutually-agreed upon judge. Property cannot become a right until a conflict over specific uses arises. Unless you are using all of North America, nothing anyone does there enters into conflict with what you do. Once a judge decides in your favor, that decision becomes your written title to the property.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Harksaw: Austrianism and libertarianism talk about the right to property. The idea that it is a "right" would mean that it exists independent of government. But how does this right work out without government? Let's say the first human to come to North America claimed it all for himself. He hasn't even seen most of it, but he's the first guy there. Does he now have a right to it all? If somebody else lands on the other side of the continent and claims the half he lands on, has he violated the rights of the first person? Would it make a difference if he had explored all of North America on his own? If you can't control it, is it still yours, even without a government to keep record of it being yours? What is the fundamental difference between posession and ownership? Rights are established through arbitration by mutually-agreed upon judge. Property cannot become a right until a conflict over specific uses arises. Unless you are using all of North America, nothing anyone does there enters into conflict with what you do. Once a judge decides in your favor, that decision becomes your written title to the property.
Harksaw: Austrianism and libertarianism talk about the right to property. The idea that it is a "right" would mean that it exists independent of government. But how does this right work out without government? Let's say the first human to come to North America claimed it all for himself. He hasn't even seen most of it, but he's the first guy there. Does he now have a right to it all? If somebody else lands on the other side of the continent and claims the half he lands on, has he violated the rights of the first person? Would it make a difference if he had explored all of North America on his own? If you can't control it, is it still yours, even without a government to keep record of it being yours? What is the fundamental difference between posession and ownership?
loweleif: The right can exist before arbitration by a mutually-agreed upon Judge. I have a right to self ownership? And hence the NAP and Homesteading which follow. How can property not become a right until a conflict over specific uses arises? Also, he doesn't have to be constantly using North America, he only has to mix his labor will all the land once. Unless you are aware of that and I misinterpreted what you wrote.
We are using rights in the plural sense, meaning that I own the rights over my car, my house, and so on. These rights must either be transferred by contract (a deed) or, if they were originally appropriated, recognized by a court in order to become a property title in writing.
Homesteading is not about a right to property, but about whether established property rights are just.
As for your last comments, it is possible for property to disappear if the owner abandons it. However if the owner defends himself and immediately challenges all attempts to homestead a property he is leaving in reserve, the burden of proof on the "squatter" will be extremely high to prove the property was abandoned. On the other hand, if someone abandons his property, then years later finds out someone actually made it useful after all, he cannot claim a right to what has been produced.