Comment: Homesteading land is an acceptable form to acquire property (or any derivative property of land that were transferred after being homesteaded) so long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same. The freedom of anyone ends where the freedom of anyone else begins.
To put it with an analogy, if we were all trapped in an elevator nobody would have unlimited freedom to homestead all the air thus leaving everybody else without any. Your freedom to breathe air ends where the freedom to breathe of anybody else begins.
Land is a special kind of object too. Like the air that we breathe, land is essential for our survival. Humans require of some land under their feet, and directly or indirectly, need land to obtain their food, fresh water, and shelter (with a few exceptions such as the people who live in houseboats, fishers and seafood gatherers, although only partially).
It's also worth to mention that unlike most other resources (oil wells, ground water, gold mines, workforce), and except for a few exceptions such as lost islands in the middle of the ocean, land isn't by itself a discoverable resource. Everybody knows that if you continue walking, you'll find more and more land or its boundary with some water mass. Unlike hidden resources, the land homesteader doesn't have a better claim over his "discovered" plot of land than anybody else.
Therefore, in order to preserve individual freedom the practice of homesteading land must be limited one way or another. The monopoly of land that would inexorably lead (as it has already occurred in the past) to the servitude, famine or death, and affect everybody saved to the land owners.
A different problem arises when the homesteader is occupying their land plot. In such case, their priority over the land plot that they are occupying responds to a need to solve a steric problem. This kind of priority to the access of land is also observed when people visit a crowded beach. The visitors of the beach are only entitled to occupy previously unoccupied spaces, thus respecting the "living space" already occupied by earlier visitors. Likewise, the occupied space is respected by later visitors during the temporary absence of the earlier occupants, particularly when their recent occupancy is apparent or can be proven in some way.
The issue of land ownership was frequently discussed by anarchist thinkers of the 19th century:
« Spooner defended unlimited private land ownership and grounded his support of this theory on the homesteading axiom: "The right of property in material wealth is acquired, . . .in one of these two ways, viz.: first, by simply taking possession of natural wealth, or the productions of nature; and, secondly by the artificial production of other wealth. . . The natural wealth of the world belongs to those who first take possession of it. . . There is no limit, fixed by the law of nature, to the amount of property one may acquire simply by taking possession of natural wealth, not already possessed, except the limit fixed by (a person's) power or ability to take such possession, without doing violence to the person or property of others."  Spooner would have definitely agreed with Rothbard, that ". .once a piece of land passes justly into Mr. A's ownership, he cannot be said to truly own that land unless he can conveyor sell the title to Mr . B, and to prevent B from exercising his title simply because he doesn't choose to use it himself but rather rents it out voluntarily to Mr. C, is an invasion of B's freedom of contract and of his right to his justly-acquired private property."
Spooner had expressed his ideas on land ownership in his LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1855) and in his pamphlet, REVOLUTION: A REPLY TO 'DUNRAVEN' (1880). Tucker took him to task in LIBERTY: "I call Spooner's work on 'Intellectual Property' positively foolish because it is fundamentally foolish, --because, that is to say, its discussion of the acquisition of property starts with a basic proposition that must be looked upon by all consistent Anarchists as obvious nonsense. I quote this basic proposition. 'The natural wealth of the world belongs to those who first take possession of it. . . So much natural wealth, remaining unpossessed, as anyone can take possession of first, becomes absolutely his property.' " Tucker charged Spooner with being a defender of unlimited land ownership since Spooner's proposition would allow that ". . .a man may go to a piece of vacant land and fence it off; that he may then go to a second piece and fence that off; then to a third, and fence that off; then to a fourth, a fifth, a hundredth, a thousandth, fencing them all off; that, unable to fence off himself as many as he wishes, he may hire other men to do fencing for him; and that then he may stand back and bar all other men from using these lands, or admit them as tenants at such rental as he may choose to exact."  In these circumstances, Tucker asked: "What becomes of the Anarchistic doctrine of occupancy and use as the basis and limit of land ownership'?”
Tucker was a great critic of the land ownership system existing in the 19th Century. Absentee land ownership presented a serious problem in Ireland. Due to the agitation of the "No-Rent Movement" and the Irish Land League and the publicity of the ideas of Henry George, the subject of land ownership was very much a topic of public concern. Tucker believed that the occupancy and use theory of land holding solved the problem of justice in land ownership. The essence of the theory was that only actual users or possessors of the land (i.e., the Irish tenants) could be considered its owners. Occupancy and use as the basis for land ownership would free for use all land not actually being occupied by its owners. Thus landlords would cease to exist, as would all renting or leasing of real property, since the absentee landlord could claim no title or control over his unoccupied property. Spooner was quite critical of this doctrine: in fact he labeled it communism. The premise of any argument denying property rights in any form is communism. ". . .There is, therefore, no middle ground between absolute communism, on the one hand, which holds that a man has a right to lay his hands on any thing, which has no other man's hands upon it, no matter who may have been the producer; and the principle of individual property, on the other hand, which says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor, whether he retains them in his actual possession or not.”
Tucker believed that "a man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labor, to the limit of his capacity and beyond the limit of his personal use, into material of which there is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence of other men, to withhold that material from other men's uses; and any contract based upon or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to deliver stolen goods." Under Tucker's theory, if "a man exerts himself by erecting a building on land which afterward, by the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully becomes another's, he must, upon demand of the subsequent occupant, remove from this land, the results of his self-exertion, or, failing to do so, sacrifice his property rights therein. The man who persists in storing his property on another's premises is an invader and it is his crime that alienates control of this property. He is 'fined one house,' not for 'building a house and then letting another man live in it,' but for invading the premises of another." Thus Tucker admitted that homesteading, in the form of original possession or self-exertion furnished no basis for a continuing claim to land ownership, after the homesteader left the land. To further illustrate his differences with Spooner, Tucker related a conversation that he had with Spooner concerning the rightfulness of the Irish rebellion against absentee landlords: "Mr. Spooner bases his opposition to Irish and English landlords on the sole ground that they or their ancestors took their lands by the sword from the original holders. This he plainly stated, -- so plainly that I took issue with Mr. Spooner on this point when he asked me to read the manuscript (REVOLUTION) before its publication, I then asked him whether if Dunraven (the absentee landlord) or his ancestors had found unoccupied the very lands that he now holds, and had fenced them off, he would have any objection to raise against Dunraven's title and to leasing of these lands. He declared emphatically that he would not. Whereupon I protested that his pamphlet, powerful as it was within its scope, did not go to the bottom of the land question."
Much of Tucker's concern with the land problem was based on his apprehension of the monopoly problem. He is well known for his four-pronged attack on monopolies: land, banking, tariff, and copyright and patent. Tucker feared that the right of contract would be carried to an illogical extreme: ". . . It would be possible (under a regime of unfettered freedom of contract in land) for an individual to acquire, and hold simultaneously, virtual titles to innumerable parcels of land, by the merest show of labor performed thereon; . . . (and) . . . we should be forced to consider . . . the virtual ownership of nearly the entire earth by a small fraction of its inhabitants …" Analogous to his position on land ownership, Tucker also attacked the literary monopolization of ideas based on copyright Spooner was a consistent defender of property in all forms and claimed for inventors and authors a perpetual copyright in their work. It is plain that neither could agree until their theories of ownership were harmonized, and both either adopted or rejected the homesteading principle.»
— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 (3)
— Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
«Second in importance comes the land monopoly, the evil effects of which are seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like Ireland. This monopoly consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. It was obvious to Warren and Proudhon that, as soon as individualists should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of land, ground-rent would disappear, and so usury have one less leg to stand on. Their followers of to-day are disposed to modify this claim to the extent of admitting that the very small fraction of ground-rent which rests, not on monopoly, but on superiority of soil or site, will continue to exist for a time and perhaps forever, though tending constantly to a minimum under conditions of freedom. But the inequality of soils which gives rise to the economic rent of land, like the inequality of human skill which gives rise to the economic rent of ability, is not a cause for serious alarm even to the most thorough opponent of usury, as its nature is not that of a germ from which other and graver inequalities may spring, but rather that of a decaying branch which may finally wither and fall.»
— Benjamin R Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [document no. 790, 791, 794]
«Mr. Byington's erroneous conclusions regarding the confiscation of economic rent are due, as I view it, to his confusion of liberties with rights, or, perhaps I might better say, to his foundation of equality of liberty upon a supposed equality of rights. I take issue with him at the very start by denying the dogma of equality of rights,—in fact, by denying rights altogether except those acquired by contract. In times past, when, though already an Egoist and knowing then as now that every man acts and always will act solely from an interest in self, I had not considered the bearing of Egoism upon the question of obligation, it was my habit to talk glibly and loosely of the right of man to the land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right over the land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's until the latter is dispossessed in turn by one mightier still. But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain conditions of land ownership, and will protect no title in the absence of the conditions fixed upon. The object of this contract is not to enable all to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results of his efforts expended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one's efforts that equality of liberty is instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a social convenience. I have always maintained that liberty is of greater importance than wealth,—in other words, that man derives more happiness from freedom than from luxury,—and this is true; but there is another sense in which wealth, or rather property, is of greater importance than liberty. Man has but little to gain from liberty unless that liberty includes the liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the régime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.»
— Benjamin R Tucker. Liberty and Property. Liberty (December 31, 1892) vol. 9 (18) (whole no. 252) pp. 3-4 [document no. 1591-1592]
Max Stirner wrote a rebuttal to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's claim that all property is theft. You may be interested, it's quite convincing. For instance, the absurd notion that everything belongs to Man (aka, "human society", humankind):
«Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail. Because in his mind theft ranks as abominable without any question, Proudhon, e. g., thinks that with the sentence "Property is theft" he has at once put a brand on property. In the sense of the priestly, theft is always a crime, or at least a misdeed. »
« Property as the civic liberals understand it deserves the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing but a property-less man, one who is everywhere shut out. Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he turns around.
Proudhon wants not the propriétaire but the possesseur or usufruitier. 179 What does that mean? He wants no one to own the land; but the benefit of it – even though one were allowed only the hundredth part of this benefit, this fruit – is at any rate one’s property, which he can dispose of at will. He who has only the benefit of a field is assuredly not the proprietor of it; still less he who, as Proudhon would have it, must give up so much of this benefit as is not required for his wants; but he is the proprietor of the share that is left him. Proudhon, therefore, denies only such and such property, not property itself. If we want no longer to leave the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a société, that makes itself proprietor; if we have good luck in this, then those persons cease to be landed proprietors. And, as from the land, so we can drive them out of many another property yet, in order to make it our property, the property of the – conquerors. The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as exclusive too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. Why, so in our old relations a house which belongs to five heirs is their common estate; but the fifth part of the revenue is, each one’s property. Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if he said: "There are some things that belong only to a few, and to which we others will from now on lay claim or – siege. Let us take them, because one comes to property by taking, and the property of which for the present we are still deprived came to the proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized better if it is in the hands of us all than if the few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery (vol)." – Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.
Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e. g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact – to wit, the propertylessness of the individual. When the laws says, Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone can control and dispose of "everything," he has potestas and imperium over it. The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.
Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, but the individual. »
« Proudhon (Weitling too) thinks he is telling the worst about property when he calls it theft (vol). Passing quite over the embarrassing question, what well-founded objection could be made against theft, we only ask: Is the concept "theft" at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept "property"? How can one steal if property is not already extant? What belongs to no one cannot be stolen; the water that one draws out of the sea he does not steal. Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property. Weitling has to come to this too, as he does regard everything as the property of all: if something is "the property of all," then indeed the individual who appropriates it to himself steals.
Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant – for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the – law.»
« Proudhon calls property "robbery" (le vol). But alien property – and he is talking of this alone – is not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a present. Why so sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the others unrobbed?* The poor are to blame for there being rich men.
Universally, no one grows indignant at his, but at alien property. They do not in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They want to be able to call more, not less, theirs; they want to call everything theirs. They are fighting, therefore, against alienness, or, to form a word similar to property, against alienty. And how do they help themselves therein? Instead of transforming the alien into own, they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party, e. g. human society. They revindicate the alien not in their own name but in a third party’s. Now the "egoistic" coloring is wiped off, and everything is so clean and – human! »
«Thinking will as little cease as feeling. But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the – hierarchy, lasts as long as the parsons, i.e., theologians, philosophers, statesmen, philistines, liberals, schoolmasters, servants, parents, children, married couples, Proudhon, George Sand, Bluntschli, etc., etc., have the floor; the hierarchy will endure as long as people believe in, think of, or even criticize, principles; for even the most inexorable criticism, which undermines all current principles, still does finally believe in the principle.
Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
URL related G+ post with excerpts:
A different question is whether individuals under any circumstances should respect property. The respect of private property has a very specific purpose. When such purpose is not met, it's absurd to stick to such respect. As I quoted above,
«Man's only right over the land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's until the latter is dispossessed in turn by one mightier still. But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain conditions of land ownership, and will protect no title in the absence of the conditions fixed upon. The object of this contract is not to enable all to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results of his efforts expended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one's efforts that equality of liberty is instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a social convenience.»
« One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the régime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest. »
~Benjamin R Tucker.
It's useless to protect (or to respect) any land property title when you have no danger of dispossession because you've been already barred from having any property title.
In my view, these disputes originate as a result of the sacred nature that most people have endowed to the notions of justice and morality:
«"The man who is crying chestnuts before my window has a personal interest in a brisk sale, and if his wife or anybody else wishes as much for him, this as well is a personal interest. If, on the other hand, a thief were to take away his basket, there would at once arise an interest of many, of the whole city, of the entire country, or, in one word, of all who abominate theft: an interest wherein the person of the chestnut-vender would be indifferent, and in its place the category of 'one who is robbed' would appear in the forefront. But here, too, it might still all be resolved into a personal interest, each participant reflecting that he must aid in the punishment of the thief because, otherwise, unpunished stealing would become general and he also would lose his possessions. There are many, however, from whom such a calculation is not to be presumed. Rather, the cry will be heard that the thief is a 'criminal.' Here we have a judgment before us, the act of the thief receiving its expression in the conception 'crime.' Now the matter presents itself in this way: If a crime should work not the slightest damage either to me or to any of those for whom I take concern, yet nevertheless I should be zealous against it. Why? Because I am enthused for morality, filled with the idea of morality. I run down what is hostile to it. . . . Here personal interest comes to an end. This particular person who has stolen the basket is quite indifferent to my person. I take an interest only in the thief, this idea, of which that person presents an example. Thief and man are in my mind irreconcilable terms, for one who is a thief is not truly man. He dishonors man, or humanity, in himself when he steals. Departing from personal concern, we glide into philanthropy, which is usually misunderstood as if it were a love toward men, to each individual, whereas it is nothing but a love of man, of the unreal conception, of the spook. The philanthropist bears in his heart, not tous anthropous, men, but ton anthropon, man. Of course he cares for each individual, but merely for the reason that he would like to see his darling ideal realized everywhere.
"Thus there is no idea here of care for me, for you, or for us. That would be personal interest and belong in the chapter of 'earthly love.' Philanthropy is a heavenly, a spiritual, a priestly love. Man must be established in us, though we poor devils be brought to destruction in the process. It is the same priestly principle as that famous fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Man and justice are ideas, phantoms, for love of which everything is sacrificed: therefore the priestly minds are the ones that do sacrifice. . . .
"The most multiform things can belong and be accounted to man. Is his chief requisite deemed to be piety, religious priestcraft arises. Is it conceived to lie in morality, the priestcraft of morals raises its head. Hence the priestly minds of our time want to make a religion of everything; a religion of freedom, religion of equality, etc., and they make of every idea a 'sacred cause,' for instance, even citizenship, politics, publicity, freedom of the press, the jury, etc.»
— James L Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
URL related G+ post:
Excerpt from comments of source G+ post:
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
All private property is theft.
Richardson Farrier Jul 12, 2015 +1
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015 +1
"Jean-Jacques Rousseau made the same general point when he wrote:
"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:
Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.""
Aistis Raulinaitis Jul 12, 2015 +4
+Rodney Mulraney So when I mix my labor with the land, I'm stealing from whom?
Richardson Farrier Jul 12, 2015 +3
+Rodney Mulraney thanks for the clarification. However, if i cut a bit of stick off a tree and fiddled a bit of chipped flint onto the end of it then i believe that it would be my Fucking spear. It would be my private property, the fruits of my labour. Pretty hard to say that it isn't. I understand the land as property bit though.
Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +4
'Property is theft' stolen concept fallacy
3 min 39 sec
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
There are different concepts and levels of "ownership". Personal property and usage possesion, most people agree with, (within reason)... however the idea of fencing off regions and leaving "I own this" notes everywhere is theft.
Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +3
+Rodney Mulraney "however the idea of fencing off regions and leaving "I own this" notes everywhere is theft."
No it isn't.
Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Well it was a shared resource, and then one person arbitrarily decided to claim it was just his/hers... in so doing he stole it from all other potential users in through all time...
Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +2
If you didn't have a valid claim to something then it was never yours. Sorry. You aren't owed resources simply because you exist.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Just arbitrarily claiming you owned land and resources is not itself valid. You have no right to claim the shared resources to yourself, that is theft.
*Jon Thompson*Jul 12, 2015 +2
+Rodney Mulraney Who's claiming it's arbitrary?
Theodore Minick Jul 12, 2015 +4
+Rodney Mulraney a shared resource is something owned in common by those who share it. Claiming a piece of such a shared resource would indeed be theft.
But saying that a piece of land that you've never used, never set foot on, never even seen, is your property, just because you exist, that's just hogwash. You've done nothing, provided nothing, to establish that claim. There is no objective link between you and the property in question. It's not yours, so claiming it cannot be theft.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Anarchists... I am an Anarchist, you may hold to some other elitist view, but I do not.
If you read the book titled as the OPs handle here you will see how state theft of land, "private property" is one of the main ways states function... its part and parcel of state making...
Slavery, and property/land theft is how states are made.
If you had your "pure capilaistic" system and got rid of the state, you would just have corporate state-lets that expanded/merged etc... into the same system we have today...
States generally only need forced slavery when populations are dispersed, with the population densities increasing they tend to switch to guarding land...
*Jon Thompson*Jul 12, 2015 +4
"...state theft of land, "private property" is one of the main ways states function."
The state is the antithesis of private property. Once the state steals land it's usually referred to as public property.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
States start off as a few people with evil ideas...
Aka that people that claim resources that provide for all, so they can exploit others.
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 12, 2015 +3
States make arbitrary claims and try to own as much land as possible. Because the state is owned by the people, the more land the state owns, the less land can be owned privately, and the more land becomes a shared resource for the people. The state is communism/socialism-lite.
* Rodney Mulraney* Jul 13, 2015 12:00 AM
States by any other name are still states, no matter how much you want a pure dictatorship to be called something else, it is still a "state"...
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:44 AM
Ownership of land predates humanity. This is an objectively verifiable fact. Property rights can also be derived from first principles. They are perfectly rational.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:44 AM
+Jeremiah Mitchell Anarchists would say, if you live in it, then yes... we look at different types of "ownership" differently, and there is a broad ish spectrum.
I personally think "ownership" is a misleading word and wouldnt use it...
We use stuff, we have stuff we have priority over to different extents for different reasons...
But ownership... no, sorry... I do not see how any total ownership claim can be justified.
Brian Boring* Jul 13, 2015 12:45 AM +1
Property is very simply a claim of moral jurisdiction. You have no right to arbitrarily limit what others can have a property in. Sorry.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:47 AM
+Brian Boring predates humanity ? hmm you make some strange assertions, but if you will not even outline a basic argument to support them, you might as well claim, you are tony blair so you are correct...
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM
+Brian Boring The act of making a property claim is the act of limiting others rights to said property. You have no moral right to do that, and you provide no justification for it either.
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM +2
Well, no, anarchists would say yes, I do own it if I acquired it legitimately. Whether I lived in it or not, if it was acquired through voluntary means, then I own it according to anarchists. For a person to say I didn't own it and take it from me, would be for them to rule over me and my property, stealing from me the product of my labor. That person would not be an anarchist, but a statist who claims the right to the product of the labor of others.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM +2
I've already provided you with the logical proof for property rights. Just scroll up and avail yourself of it.
If you don't believe that the concept of property exists in nature go into a bear's cave and tell it to stop stealing from the commons.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:49 AM
+Rodney Mulraney "The act of making a property claim is the act of limiting others rights to said property."
If I make a valid claim of property then no one else had one. Try again.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:49 AM
+Jeremiah Mitchell Maybe you should find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense.
You are confused with the conflation of different types of possessive claims to things.
Anarchy is based on the rejection of "property" rights.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +2
Bubba over here wants to have sex with you. If you don't let him you are limiting his rights to your body.
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney Anarchy - No Rulers.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +3
+Rodney Mulraney "Maybe you find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense."
Anarchy means very simply no rulers. That's it. Stop trying to rule over other people and their property.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:51 AM
+Brian Boring Maybe you should find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense.
You are confused with the conflation of different types of possessive claims to things.
Anarchy is based on the rejection of "property" rights.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:51 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney "Also logic... "
You don't seem to know anything about logic. Feel free to try and refute the logical proof offered earlier though. I would love to hear that.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:52 AM
What was that quote of Proudhon's you liked so much?
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:53 AM
+Rodney Mulraney Statism is based on the rejection of property rights, as the state exists by violating the property rights of its citizens. You keep describing characteristics of the State and calling it Anarchy.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:53 AM
The thing is that you want to make this idea of private property a core principle...
I am saying we cannot do that, we need to justify use.
This means I can give arbitrary examples to show you are wrong, this proves your premise is actually false...
You need to prove it is universal, you cannot give arbitrary examples to do that, you can use a generic definition and then whenever someone gives an arbitrary example to counter that you have to either change your definition so it no longer falls for said example or admit your concept is false.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:55 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney "The thing is that you want to make this idea of private property a core principle..."
No, self ownership is a core principle. Property rights extend from that. Do try to keep up.
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 12:57 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney hypocrisy invalidates any argument made from that hypocrisy.
If you did own a home, I'd assume you would let anyone who wants shit in your living room?
Otherwise you're limiting their rights to that property. And you wouldn't want to do that, would you?
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:58 AM +1
You don't understand man. That's a totally different type of property, because... reasons!
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:11 AM
Look I'm interested in the issues and systems and stuff that people present, I am not interested in children's playground games.
The kind of free market libertarianism you are promoting is not taken seriously by many serious people anyway...
A few people have tried to justify it in various ways, but it is clear they tend to fall at both ends and in the middle.
At the start you cannot justify the theft of the common resources, just by calling "dibs" on something... In the middle by mixing labour to get more for less, that cannot be justified it is just arbitrary and only means to the end of have everything owned as a private commodity for market trading... and at the end, since this just leads to dictatorships...
Now this whole thing would work in the condition you already had an altruistic society, but we do not, and if we did they would freely trade in ways which seemed as if an invisible socialist hand was at work.
What we have at the moment is mixed societies where the attempt is often made to make a visible socialist hand to make the free market "workable"...
Anarchy doesn't refer to the system you are promoting, it refers to libertarian socialism.
Your system opposes anarchist systems on the economic domination polarity, and you are literally opposite to anarchistic systems.
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:11 AM +1
" Nature, then, contains things that are economically scarce. My use of such a thing conflicts with (excludes) your use of it, and vice versa. The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). To perform this function, property rights must be both visible and just. Clearly, in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible. For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous. In other words, “good fences make good neighbors.”
Property rights must be demonstrably just, as well as visible, because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all; it is merely might versus right again, i.e., the pre-property rights situation. But as libertarians recognize, following Locke, it is only the first occupier or user of such property that can be its natural owner. Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources. When property rights in scarce means are allocated in accordance with first-occupier homesteading rules, property borders are visible, and the allocation is demonstrably just. Conflict can be avoided with such property rights in place because third parties can see and, thus, sidestep the property borders, and be motivated to do so because the allocation is just and fair."
+Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property"
He then clears this up even further in "How We Come To Own Ourselves":
"However, the "first use" rule is merely the result of the application of the more general principle of objective link to the case of objects that may be homesteaded from an unowned state. Recall that the purpose of property rights is to permit conflicts over scarce (rivalrous) resources to be avoided. To fulfill this purpose, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. The assignment must not, however, be random, arbitrary, or biased, if it is to actually be a property norm and possibly help conflict to be avoided. What this means is that title has to be assigned to one of the competing claimants based on 'the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link' between owner and the resource claimed.
Thus, it is the concept of objective link between claimants and a claimed resource that determines property ownership. First use is merely what constitutes the objective link in the case of previously unowned resources. In this case, the only objective link to the thing is that between the first user — the appropriator — and the thing. Any other supposed link is not objective, and is merely based on verbal decree, or on some type of formulation that violates the prior-later distinction. But the prior-later distinction is crucial if property rights are to actually establish rights, and to make conflict avoidable. Moreover, ownership claims cannot be based on mere verbal decree, as this also would not help to reduce conflict, since any number of people could simply decree their ownership of the thing.
So for homesteaded things — previously unowned resources — the objective link is first use. It has to be by the nature of the situation."
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:14 AM
+Theodore Minick Anyone can presuppose their position, there are lots of alternatives and we need to compare and contrast them... not just presuppose one, and then rationalize it to make us feel better...
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 1:17 AM +3
+Rodney Mulraney Your system sets up rulers over the property of others. Your system is a different form of government that rules over others. Anarchy cannot mean what you say it does. Find a different word. I suspect "communism" would be a good one.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:19 AM
I've provided you with the full logical case for property rights. You can either keep evading or actually provide the refutation you said was so easy.
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
+Rodney Mulraney I didn't presuppose my position. The position is clearly reasoned out.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
Mine doesn't +Jeremiah Mitchell .. I say we should reason about things depending on the situation, reason together and make decisions, based on valid justifications...
You claim people can rule vast areas... you should not use the word "anarchy" to represent what you believe, because that is actually being inconsistent.
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
Still waiting on that refutation~
Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:21 AM
+Brian Boring To what ? please provide your argument ?
Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:28 AM +1
Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles
The full logical proof of our position. Have fun trying to refute it.
Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 1:45 AM +2
I'm all for reasoning about things with valid justifications too. If I build a home on a piece of unowned land, the home is mine. What is invalid about this justification?
Ruling over property is far different than ruling over a person. I suppose my assumption about anarchy is that it is about interpersonal relationships, not that it applies to everything. I rule over food every time I eat it without guilt, so I suppose in that sense I am not an anarchist.
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:51 AM +2
Let's walk through the reasoning behind property rights, okay? You'll need to participate, though, because if I just data dump, you apparently shut down. So we'll go step by step. That way, you can point out a flaw in my logic, if there is one. Sound fun?
Let's begin with scarcity. This is, unfortunately, an undeniable fact of reality. TANSTAAFL. There's a finite amount of resources to use. You probably don't dispute this. Even air, as abundant as it is, is economically scarce. If all the plants stopped photosynthesis, we'd all die in rather short order.
So, that's the first step. The world is full of things which are economically scarce. Can you refute that?
Nathan Myron Jul 13, 2015 2:53 AM +2
If I am the first to ever happen upon this land, I call it mine, build my home and use it to my will. If you wish to share in the bounty of this property, approach me and establish a contract acceptable to both sides, and we do business. Or find another parcel of land. Or make an offer I cannot refuse so that I part with my property rights for your offered items/services, and I will go find other land or seek to do as you have just done elsewhere. Seems the logical conclusion once you remove the state from the middle saying 'all unclaimed are belong to us'.
Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:04 AM +1
I really don't want to wade all the way in on this one, but I would like to point out an issue I noticed:
In Mr. Killian's video, he begins by saying that axioms and propositions that are considered "first principles" do not have to be defended.
This is patently false. Axiomatic expressions are merely beginning points that must be accepted by the reader on good faith so that the argument the author wants to make can be expanded succinctly. It says nothing to the truthfulness of the assertion expressed by the axiom. The single most potent way of dismantling an argument is, in fact, to refute its axioms.
Conversely, if Mr. Killian means to say that because he considers some axiom a "first principle" that he has no personal obligation to defend it, whatever argument follows from it is a bare assertion and, therefore, fallacious [although it could still turn out that some or all of the following argument is true].
Kind regards! :D
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:09 AM +3
self-evident or unquestionable.
Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:15 AM
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:24 AM +2
"As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
ie: self-evident or unquestionable.
Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:25 AM
And you read literally nothing else of it?
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:35 AM +3
And you watched literally nothing else of the video? The first principles he goes on to use are, indeed, so self-evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. Unless you have found something that is itself and it's antithesis simultaneously?
Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 5:11 AM +1
You might notice that I did not critique the arguments presented in the video. That was intentional. It is because, as I said, I did not wish to wade into the content of the argument presented on this thread. My point had specifically to do with the style of argumentation presented in the video.
To make a philosophical claim predicated upon an axiom is to presuppose its truth (that is, the truth of the axiom). But that someone presupposes the truth of some assertion, the axiom of their argument, does not automatically make it, the axiom, true. It only indicates that they suppose it to be true and predicate their argument that follows upon it.
The way that the term "axiom" is applied in logical proofs is different. It is as I describe in my original comment, and that description is supported by both of the links I posted. I believe this is relevant to this discussion because Mr. Killian appears to be forming a logical proof: Libertarianism and Property Rights. If his intention is not to form such a logical proof than I clearly overshot, and I'll apologize and walk away.
Before we get too far along, let me point out that Mr. Killian explicitly states, and I quote, "...the only way for the conclusion to be wrong would be for these first principles to be wrong as well". So, clearly, in Mr. Killian's view, axiomatic expressions can indeed be wrong -- even though he insists, earlier, that axioms don't need to be defended.
This assertion is consistent with my critique.
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 5:33 AM +2
Given his earlier statement, I would interpret that as saying, "The conclusion cannot be wrong."
Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 6:28 AM
If he means that first principles cannot be wrong, then yours would be the correct interpretation. He doesn't say that, precisely, though. In fact, I gave two possible interpretations I believed were consistent with his description -- I wasn't sure which he was actually asserting -- but you rejected both of those and proposed one I hadn't received at all. So I'm not sure we'll make any headway following this line of discussion.
Suppose we conduct this as a thought experiment instead.
Let us suppose we have a cosmology that asserts axiomatically that the Earth is the center of the universe, and other celestial bodies orbit it. This is historically factual. We know this was an axiom of ancient cosmology because it was presented as self-evident and treated as literally true and literally indisputable, even to the extent that dissenters were regarded as insane, and sometimes executed. [This is what "axiom" means in the context of philosophy: we simply assert something -- geocentric cosmology in our example -- is true.]
As a matter of logical proof we can say that some premise X follows from some axiom Y. But that premise X follows from axiom Y tells us nothing of whether Y is true, even though we have asserted it axiomatically. For example, we can assert that celestial bodies circle the Earth in a curlicue pattern based upon the geocentricity axiom and the observed paths of celestial bodies as viewed from Earth (and this is what early cosmologists believed). This must be true as long as the geocentricity axiom holds true and the curlicue paths are correctly observed. If we challenge this axiom and find it cannot stand up to reason or evidence, we must reject it and replace it with one that does. And, with regard to geocentricity, we have. [This is what "axiom" means in the context of logical proof. And this is what I was critiquing in Mr. Killian's video.]
Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 6:51 AM +3
Except the axioms presented are self-proving.
A is A is not something that can be disproved by a satellite. You'd literally need to find something that is itself and its antithesis simultaneously.
Given that matter and antimatter annihilate each other, I wish you luck.
Rodney Mulraney Jul 14, 2015 5:58 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla TLDR, (too long didn't read)... you need to do small summaries of idea and if needed link to fuller explanations...
It is actually a form of "trolling" to post so much in a comment.. Try to be concise...
I skimmed through it though, and it seemed to fail with the projection of its own misunderstanding... it is not the case that ;
If private property is wrong (with its criteria), then common property is right...
It doesn't necessarily have to be property of anyone at all, or if so it can come with so many constraints as to "uncontrollable" by the "owners"
You essentially argue against a straw man, because you present a false dichotomy.
I haven't actually read the guy that came up with that quote, but from the commentaries I have read about it... it is clear that the idea of property and ownership is the thing that is contended...
I mean it is obvious to a certain extent, we do not think of a lot of things as owned.. we merely accept responsibility for looking after them... like children, the idea of ownership there is fundamentally out of place.
Some of us extend that principle to air, oceans, land, all life and ecology itself, as well.
Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 14, 2015 7:53 AM
+Rodney Mulraney: "It is actually a form of "trolling" to post so much in a comment.. Try to be concise..."
— I don't care what others may think is "trolling". I make my comments in the form I see fit.
+Rodney Mulraney: "If private property is wrong(with its criteria), then common property is right..."
— There's no such thing you call "common property", i.e., owned by everyone (not to be confused with communal tenure/commons, a form of collective ownership).
+Rodney Mulraney: «It doesnt necessarily have to be property of anyone at all, or if so it can come with so many contraints as to "uncontrollable" by the "owners"»
— As Stirner points out, the "possesseur or usufruitier" is also an owner ("propriétaire"), since he is who benefits of the fruit of the land, therefore the fruit is his property.
On the other hand, your desire to abolish property, or to impose constraints over it is also a concealed way to conquer property (something on which you exert control) on behalf of some "noble cause" as a pretext.
+Rodney Mulraney: "You essentially argue against a strawman, because you present a false dichotomy."
— It's me who does, or Stirner?
+Rodney Mulraney: "I mean it is obvious to a certain extent, we do not think of a lot of things as owned.."
— Who is "we", the people who think like you?
On the other hand, it's irrelevant what they may "think" if their conduct shows otherwise.
+Rodney Mulraney: "we merely accept responsibility for looking after them..."
— Who is "we", a bunch of self-righteous environmentalists?
+Rodney Mulraney: "like children, the idea of ownership there is fundamentally out of place."
— No, it isn't:
• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
URL related G+ pots with excerpts:
+Rodney Mulraney: "Some of us extend that principle to air, oceans, land, all life and ecology itself, as well."
— I figured. Anyhow, notice that you claimed that "All private property is theft", not only property over certain objects or beings.
You may be interested in reading this passage (again?). I suspect you're committing the kind of intellectual misstep described here:
« Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
Rodney Mulraney Jul 14, 2015 8:10 AM +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla Well it is fairly easy to imagine scenarios where this idea of total ownership / private property becomes silly... so that is why we start to prescribe various conditions.. which limit the complete ownership of things...
The extreme ends of the spectrum are no limits at all and total limitation - ie no real meaningful "ownership"
Since it is doubtful either of us is promoting such a total extreme view, maybe we should be discussing, where the lines are to be drawn and why...
Self consistent philosophical grounding of the extremes is easy, and largely purely academic and not actually of much practical concern except to the extent they can molded into more practical systems... even if they get unyielding complex... hence our current systems ... shrug....
URL source G+ post:
Why Do We Vilify Low-Income Black Women Simply for Being Mothers? | Dame...
Debra Harrell, Frankea Dabbs, Shanesha Taylor—all dehumanized and criminalized for taking care of their children the best they can.
Google Is About To Take Over Your Whole Life, And You Won't Even Notice ...
Google's new design ethos, living on and beyond every screen, could to make Google an amorphous problem solver of unimaginable scale.
Top Grocery Brands Comparison: Disturbing Truth About How Big Food Compa...
Standing in the supermarket’s food section aisle you’re confronted with hundreds of different products compounded by the happy proliferation
Calhoun Community College Commencement 2014 by Calhoun Community College...
Watch Calhoun Community College CETV's Calhoun Community College Commencement 2014 on Livestream.com.
More companies set up social media monitoring and training programs
More companies are turning to consultants for advice and skills to avoid becoming the latest casualty of a social-media flub.
Want to Reduce Crime? Get Rid of Cash - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Why has crime fallen sharply in the U.S. since the 1990s? One factor might be a decline in the use of cash, say the authors of a new paper p
The Root Causes Behind Many Health Problems May Surprise You
You think it's only medical care that influences your health? The real truth is all around you.
Netflix - Watch TV Shows Online, Watch Movies Online
Watch Movies & TV Shows Online or Streaming right to your TV via Xbox, Wii, PS3 & many other devices. Only $7.99/mo. Start Your Free Trial T
Executed Killer Gasped And Snorted Under New Lethal Drug Combo
LUCASVILLE, Ohio (AP) — A condemned Ohio inmate appeared to gasp several times and took more than 15 minutes to die Thursday as he was execu
NSA Carves Pathway Into International Computers: Report
WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency has put software in almost 100,000 computers around the world allowing it t
GOTCHA! Photon Finding Overseas Turns Physics Dogma On Its Head
If you want to see a packet of light called a photon, you have to destroy it. Any device that picks up on the presence of light has to absor
Here's Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense
We know that the very act of being poor guarantees that we will never not be poor. It doesn't give us much reason to improve ourselves.