[BATIK]

And people accuse Communists of being 'utopian'.

This sequence of discussion shows how political extremes are equally utopian. Communism, although using materialist analysis, is still utopian in its end goal. As is libertarianism with its end goal.

[Phred]

So what are you going to do? Force the current owners of the land to relinquish their legal claim to it?

Depends how valid I think the claim is. Land claims are overturned in court all the time.

My point is that for supposed revolutionaries a lot of the Lefties here seem pretty passive about accepting the jumped-up claims of (for example) some centuries-dead Spanish priest who climbed the highest peak around, thumped his crucifix-topped walking stick three times on the ground, and claimed everything within his sight for the Holy Mother Church. As has been repeatedly explained, no Libertarian would accept such a claim without challenge.

You may have missed my modified question. Even stipulating that every single square centimetre of the planet's solid surface is today attached to a valid legal claim, that wasn't the case a few centuries ago. How do you answer it? Here it is again:

"By what criteria that you will accept as valid could someone a few centuries ago have arrived at an acre or so of uninhabited land and claimed it?"


Phred

[ingliz]

"By what criteria that you will accept as valid could someone a few centuries ago have arrived at an acre or so of uninhabited land and claimed it?"

Any claim to property is "valid" if you have the means to defend it. Might is always right.

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess that the libertarians have given up on the claim that property rights are somehow universal.

[Rich]

Apple even claimed to own the concept of a rectangle with curved corners. What is property is not agreed at all.

[Voluntarism]

Apple even claimed to own the concept of a rectangle with curved corners. What is property is not agreed at all.

Along with other so-called intellectual "property", Libertarians don't accept this as property simply because it does not violate your negative rights if I have it as well as you. IP is infinitely replicable without infringing on other people's negative rights and to prevent me from having it is to control my thoughts and ideas. Only scarce things can be deemed property.

[Voluntarism]

It is actually the increasing movement toward Libertarianism in Australia which made the whole Aboriginal land acts possible.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Aboriginals reclaiming their land and getting back what is rightfully theirs is due to the hard work of indigenous people over a very long time. Libertarians do not get to pat themselves on the back for work they did not do.

I didn't say that the indigenous didn't have to work hard to get their land claims recognised. What I meant is that the recognition of indigenous people in the constitution, the recognition that they had claims, their ability to undertake peaceful protests against the government, the ability to have free speech on the issues, their ability to have self-determination are all things that happened with the increasing liberalisation of Australia since Federation compared to prior generations when their rights as people were substantially lower and they were simply slaughtered or dispossessed. These things allowed the decisions to be made to undo past laws and invalid property claims by the government in favour of people who could prove a valid property claim. This outcome is hardly a result of increasing fascism and communism in Australia.

The aboriginal views on land ownership are not libertarian.

That's my beef with it. It's almost one step forward one step back.

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't say that the indigenous didn't have to work hard to get their land claims recognised. What I meant is that the recognition of indigenous people in the constitution, the recognition that they had claims, their ability to undertake peaceful protests against the government, the ability to have free speech on the issues, their ability to have self-determination are all things that happened with the increasing liberalisation of Australia since Federation compared to prior generations when their rights as people were substantially lower and they were simply slaughtered or dispossessed. These things allowed the decisions to be made to undo past laws and invalid property claims by the government in favour of people who could prove a valid property claim. This outcome is hardly a result of increasing fascism and communism in Australia.

If you meant that increased liberalisation was the reason, you should not have used the word "Libertarianism".

Secondly, I am not sure that this is the case. I can see your logic, and it is not relevant to the discussion, so I don't really want or need to discuss it now.

That's my beef with it. It's almost one step forward one step back.

Silly Aborigines. Thinking that they should run their own economies their own way just because they actually have to live with the consequences of their decisions. We white guys should explain to them how to do it our way, right?

To get back on topic, the idea that you can simply go to uninhabited land, and simply claim it by whatever subjective criteria you deem valid, has not been realistic for the last 12,000 years or so. Consequently, it is not an objective and clear "right" the same way the right to self defense is.

[Voluntarism]

If you meant that increased liberalisation was the reason, you should not have used the word "Libertarianism".

It's still a movement toward Libertarianism even if the same principles underlie multiple ideologies

To get back on topic, the idea that you can simply go to uninhabited land, and simply claim it by whatever subjective criteria you deem valid, has not been realistic for the last 12,000 years or so. Consequently, it is not an objective and clear "right" the same way the right to self defense is.

Sweet. Then if we can ignore all notions of bringing unowned property into the system or that people currently have invalid claims then all that's left is dealing with voluntary transfers of existent property (including improving/changing any property in your possession) then the Libertarian position on private property is dead easy and fully coherent and consistent. It's simply all about trade and gifts. I work to peacefully obtain your property and you work to peacefully obtain mine. Simple

[SolarCross]

Silly Libertarians. Thinking that they should run their own economies their own way just because they actually have to live with the consequences of their decisions. We statist guys should explain to (force) them how to do it our way, right?

Fixed it for you. You're so happy to let aborigines have self-determination but libertarians must be your slaves forever and ever.

[Voluntarism]

Fixed it for you. You're so happy to let aborigines have self-determination but libertarians must be your slaves forever and ever.

He's happy that the aborigine's were given self-determination in a state context (ie self-determination of "the people") not that individual aborigines were allowed self-determination. How dare someone want the power or ability to make a decision for oneself without influence from outside! That would lead to "exploitation" or some such

[Phred]

I guess that the libertarians have given up on the claim that property rights are somehow universal.

Can't answer my question, then?

Didn't think so.


Phred

[ingliz]

Can't answer my question, then?

Your question has been answered.

Any claim, however ridiculous, is valid if you have the means to defend it. Might is always right.


ingliz

[Technology]

Any claim is valid if you have the means to defend it. Might is always right.

The means of defending it includes persuading people to respect the claim, which means you accrue the might of others to defend it. So this part doesn't negate the Anarcho-Austriatarians.

Of course, if there are big losers due to such a claim, others will be persuaded not to respect it, and different mights will contest each other. This is why "Utopian Capitalism" is impossible.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's still a movement toward Libertarianism even if the same principles underlie multiple ideologies

As long as we are clear that libertarians did not actually do anything to help Aboriginal people.

Sweet. Then if we can ignore all notions of bringing unowned property into the system or that people currently have invalid claims then all that's left is dealing with voluntary transfers of existent property (including improving/changing any property in your possession) then the Libertarian position on private property is dead easy and fully coherent and consistent. It's simply all about trade and gifts. I work to peacefully obtain your property and you work to peacefully obtain mine. Simple

Please go back and reread the thread. Eran compared the right to own property to the right of self-defense, claiming that owning uninhabited land is as clear as defending yourself from attack. If we now accept that owning uninhabited land is not an example that is actually visible in our present life (the way self-defense is), then we are accepting that the right to own property is not as clear as the right to self-defense.

Fixed it for you. You're so happy to let aborigines have self-determination but libertarians must be your slaves forever and ever.

You can have self-determination too. Just don't pretend you can use aboriginal land to do it. Go do some sea-steading.

He's happy that the aborigine's were given self-determination in a state context (ie self-determination of "the people") not that individual aborigines were allowed self-determination. How dare someone want the power or ability to make a decision for oneself without influence from outside! That would lead to "exploitation" or some such

Please do not pretend to know what my opinions are about aboriginal self-governance. I am pointing out that Aboriginal communities will have their own ideas about how to run things and libertarians have no real right to tell them how to do things.

Moreover, Aboriginal idea on how to run things are based on real events and actual history, not some poor logical deduction about abstract property rights.

Can't answer my question, then?

Didn't think so.

If you are asking about how to determine if a property right is valid, then I already answered by telling you to reread the thread and figure out the context concerning property claims on uninhabited land. I see you have not done that yet.

Let me know when you have caught up to the rest of us.

[Phred]

If you are asking about how to determine if a property right is valid, then I already answered by telling you to reread the thread and figure out the context concerning property claims on uninhabited land. I see you have not done that yet.

So you can't answer the question. No one reading this thread is the least bit surprised. It's a simple question, Pants. Why are you incapable of answering it?

Let me know when you have caught up to the rest of us.

Let the rest of us know when you've summoned the sand to answer a simple question. I for one won't be holding my breath.


Phred

[SolarCross]

You can have self-determination too. Just don't pretend you can use aboriginal land to do it. Go do some sea-steading.

I am an aboriginal of England so I can use my English land. Isn't that so?

[ingliz]

I am an aboriginal...

As a member of the tribe you can obey tribal law or face the consequences.

[SolarCross]

As a member of the tribe you can obey tribal law or face the consequences.

I didn't say I was a member of any tribe. I said I was an aboriginal of the land.

[Eran]

In this entire discussion (and I take partial responsibility for that), the concept of "Land" was treated too narrowly. "Land" in the technical, economics sense means not just the surface area of the Earth, but any natural resource. Thus sub-oceanic resources and (use of) electro-magnetic spectrum (in a particular area) are both examples of "Land". With this in mind, I hope we can all agree that not all the Land has been claimed. Far from it.

The question of claims for uninhabited land is thus a viable one, and can be resumed. Clearly, governments claim monopoly over the allocation of property rights in virgin, unclaimed Land (as the FCC did in the US in the early 20th century with respect to electromagnetic spectrum use-rights). Libertarians claim that such "uninhabited" (that is - unused and never-before-used) Land is unowned, and becomes the legitimate property of the first people to make reasonably-exclusive use of it.

The vast majority of the economy, of course, doesn't deal with unclaimed Land (whether in the narrow or in the wide sense), but rather with the right to transfer existing claims. I do believe that "virgin" setting, e.g. a group of colonists reaching a previously-unihabited world, is a useful thought-experiment. Imagining Colonial Era US without Native Americans is precisely such thought experiment, not an attempt to ignore indigenous people's rights.

As discussed countless times here, against the background of that thought experiment, in the context of which libertarians claim that uninhabited Land is unowned, and becomes the just property of its first (reasonably-exclusive) user, we can return to the real world, recognise that perfect historic justice is impossible, and strive towards the next best thing.

Just because we cannot undo the injustices of the past doesn't mean that some people have unlimited license to pile new injustices on top.

Moreover, in economic terms, the vast majority of wealth (as opposed to atoms) has been created in very recent history, often by easily-identifiable people and organisations. As the economy continues to grow, that will become even more so. The uncertain historic rights become progressively "diluted" and less-and-less consequential (with the possible exception of those Native reservations).