[Voluntarism]

Really? Then what gives one guy the right to decide where the peg shall be? What doesn't give the other the right to move past the peg? If you are going to argue that people have some absolute right to be able to own private property then you have to justify it in a sense where it is not simply a societal construct. (as it still is in your example).

The peg/fence either represents the initial valid claim over previously unclaimed land or was a partial sale of someone else's validly owned property. The initial valid claim is a result of you mixing your labour with it. The ongoing claim to property is similar albeit with a time dimension regarding when a reasonable person can expect that an old claim has become abandoned. The legal definition of such a time dimension can of course differ between cultures (and assets).

The implication is that it is not enough for a new explorer to simply claim that an entire region and all of its resources are his by their's by declaration, but in natural fact they can only claim the parts that they settle and actively work. As long as no other person appears in the region, then the explorer can claim whatever they want but it is so much empty verbiage and fantasy, with no foundation in natural fact. Should a newcomer appear on the scene, and begin to transform unused land elsewhere in the region, then any enforcement of the explorer's invalid claim would constitute criminal aggression against the newcomer and invasion of the latter's property rights.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do they have to settle there? What if they are nomads using the land as a hunting area?

It seems that land claims are only valid in Libertaria if the people claiming the land are farmers or miners, but not if they are hunters, trappers, gatherers or fishers. Can you see how that is a societal construct?

[mum]

it was my example and I mentioned they 2 people have boundary pegs or fences.
Do you know of any practice of hunters, trappers, gatherers or fishers that use boundary pegs or fences ?

As Eran as explained (much better) previously POD and I know you are not completely incompetent of looking at past threads/memory, Libertarianism respects non-exclusive use rights.

Briefly, If someone/group uses an area for hunting and fishing, and someone new wants to build a house in the same area, they would either come to some agreement where they can all get along, or the house builder has to find another spot to build.

If it's a farmer who wanted to clear vast areas to grow avocados (I like avocados) then he wouldnt be allowed to put his farm there.

Contrary to what you would have us believe, people are pretty good at getting along and working things out by themselves, and with a NAP based framework, no one has to get their negative rights violated in the process.

[Pants-of-dog]

it was my example and I mentioned they 2 people have boundary pegs or fences.
Do you know of any practice of hunters, trappers, gatherers or fishers that use boundary pegs or fences ?

No. Which is why I assumed that it was only useful for certain societies.

As Eran as explained (much better) previously POD and I know you are not completely incompetent of looking at past threads/memory, Libertarianism respects non-exclusive use rights.

Briefly, If someone/group uses an area for hunting and fishing, and someone new wants to build a house in the same area, they would either come to some agreement where they can all get along, or the house builder has to find another spot to build.

If it's a farmer who wanted to clear vast areas to grow avocados (I like avocados) then he wouldnt be allowed to put his farm there.

Contrary to what you would have us believe, people are pretty good at getting along and working things out by themselves, and with a NAP based framework, no one has to get their negative rights violated in the process.

So, you disagree with voluntarism's claim that you need to settle and actively work the land?

[mum]

you need to show use. voluntarism will probably gree with that. his wording was probably not quite broad enough

[Voluntarism]

Validly claimed resources does not mean you cannot be nomadic (which is what mum said). Nomads can have valid claims as well as fixed homesteaders. It is the mixing of your labour that is important.

As I have mentioned elsewhere in the past day or so, the issue of claims by nomadic peoples (and some by homesteaders) are that the natural resources themselves do not respect their claim and move. This simply requires a different paradigm for mutual understanding about where the boundaries of the property claim start and finish and potentially what use of the resources they are claiming (rather than the resources themselves). It does not mean there is not a valid property right. I refer people again to the Robert LeFevre book I referenced about a week ago (and repeat the warning about it's file size being ~7.5Mb).

[Pants-of-dog]

So, you don't have to settle or actively work the land.

Then how do you decide?

[Voluntarism]

So, you don't have to settle or actively work the land.

Then how do you decide?

Based on whether they (a) are making a claim and (b) whether they can show it is a valid claim. Disputes will arise, independent arbitrators will step in to provide peaceful resolution. You are no doubt are more familiar with your own indigenous people but aborigines have/had a complex overlapping system of property rights and responsibilities of fixed and mobile resources that was clearly understood between tribes with generally peaceful arbitration of disputes. Unfortunately they also did not have proper respect of other rights but the principle that property claims can be made and shown to be valid to other humans applies.

There are multiple benefits of homesteading based property rights and it is far more appropriate for the 99% of property claims in the modern human economy and these can be readily agreed upon. The other 1% or less is a small fraction, which although requiring slightly different onus of proof and underlying moral principles can still be relatively easily recognised and arbitrated upon. Trying to dismiss all notion of valid property rights based on some slightly greyer areas in a small minority of cases is bad thinking.

[Pants-of-dog]

Based on whether they (a) are making a claim and (b) whether they can show it is a valid claim. Disputes will arise, independent arbitrators will step in to provide peaceful resolution.

How do you decide if it is a valid claim without using some sort of social construct? You are no doubt are more familiar with your own indigenous people but aborigines have/had a complex overlapping system of property rights and responsibilities of fixed and mobile resources that was clearly understood between tribes with generally peaceful arbitration of disputes. Unfortunately they also did not have proper respect of other rights but the principle that property claims can be made and shown to be valid to other humans applies.

Yes, indigenous people can and did create and maintain different systems of property rights according to their own societal constructs.

There are multiple benefits of homesteading based property rights and it is far more appropriate for the 99% of property claims in the modern human economy and these can be readily agreed upon. The other 1% or less is a small fraction, which although requiring slightly different onus of proof and underlying moral principles can still be relatively easily recognised and arbitrated upon. Trying to dismiss all notion of valid property rights based on some slightly greyer areas in a small minority of cases is bad thinking.

I am not trying to dismiss them. I am pointing out that no one has shown how these rights are not based on social constructs.

[Voluntarism]

Sorry, what do "social constructs" for a minority of property rights issues have to do with whether Libertarian society is coherent?

[Eran]

People get hung up and very emotional about the notion of "property". In part, that is because the term was historically (and until today) used to signify legally established claims, whether just or not.

We libertarians offer a radical break from the past. One that continues to use the term "property", but under a very different set of legal principles which, to the best of human abilities, realign law with justice. As long as the two (law and justice) are only remotely or rhetorically related, the legislators can come up with infinite varieties of what constitutes "property", under what conditions and restrictions.

Once the two get re-aligned, a legally-established claim to a resource would also be a just claim for that resource. In most familiar circumstances, property claims will become very easy to establish and understand.


The second reason people get boggled by the term is that its modern use presumes a particular pattern of links between human activities and natural resources. This pattern of links, typical of agricultural but very different from nomad societies, lends itself to permanent and virtually-unrestricted claims by one person to a concrete piece of real-estate.

Libertarian principles, specifically the Non Aggression Principle, applies universally, not just to agricultural or industrial societies. The simple principle it states is that people shouldn't be interfered with if they engage in peaceful projects. That's all.

Local communities are very adept at working out the specific property rules relevant to their circumstances and consistent (broadly) with the NAP. In a modern, large-scale mature society, such local, verbal conventions are clarified and written down to become the law. In this process, emerge the (modern) concept of "property" as well as "easement", "passage rights", "right to light", "nuisance", etc.


So, if you restrict yourself to modern society, "property" works well, with just a handful of relatively-minor modifications. If, instead, you want to consider how libertarian principles would be applied to a nomad (or mixed nomad-agricultural) society, more imaginative work would be required.

[ThereBeDragons]

Once the two get re-aligned, a legally-established claim to a resource would also be a just claim for that resource. In most familiar circumstances, property claims will become very easy to establish and understand.

You can legally establish a claim to any resource that is also j just, depending on whose notions of justice are prevailing at the time.

Libertarian principles, specifically the Non Aggression Principle, applies universally, not just to agricultural or industrial societies. The simple principle it states is that people shouldn't be interfered with if they engage in peaceful projects. That's all.

Whether an action is peaceful depends on the social construct that is property. If I take something that is my property, it's peaceful. If I take something that is someone else's property, that's not. All you have to do is agree on what constitutes a "legal claim to property" and one could trivially impose any form of government on a libertarian framework by claiming that the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics is a corporation (or, if you don't like corporations, a single individual who is so bound by agreements and treaties that he might as well be a corporation) that has a legal claim to everything within its borders, forever, and merely leases it to people at its discretion for as long as it deems fit.

[Voluntarism]

Whether an action is peaceful depends on the social construct that is property. If I take something that is my property, it's peaceful. If I take something that is someone else's property, that's not. All you have to do is agree on what constitutes a "legal claim to property" and one could trivially impose any form of government on a libertarian framework by claiming that the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics is a corporation (or, if you don't like corporations, a single individual who is so bound by agreements and treaties that he might as well be a corporation) that has a legal claim to everything within its borders, forever, and merely leases it to people at its discretion for as long as it deems fit.

How could such a USSR person/corporation make such a claim over such a large territory and it be peaceful and just? It is contradictory.

[Eran]

You are trying to revert back to the legalistic (and thus, historically, deformed) notion of property.

It isn't the case that property titles define what constitutes "peaceful". That only works if the property titles reflect the history of the association of resources and people in the right way. To take an obvious example, if X is defined by society's laws as Y's slave, X running away isn't an unpeaceful project, nor is Y punishing X a peaceful one.

If I find an uninhabited corner of the world, and peacefully start making a living there, I have engaged in a peaceful project, regardless of what government's legislation have to say about, say, mineral extraction licenses, anti-drug laws or income tax liability.


A resource becomes my property in the relevant sense if (and only if) it has been incorporated into my peaceful projects in such a way that reasonably requires exclusive access and control. Not because of some government decree. Then (and only then) would libertarians protect that property right.

[ThereBeDragons]

If I find an uninhabited corner of the world, and peacefully start making a living there, I have engaged in a peaceful project, regardless of what government's legislation have to say about, say, mineral extraction licenses, anti-drug laws or income tax liability.

Unless, of course, that uninhabited corner of the world had an existing property owner.

A resource becomes my property in the relevant sense if (and only if) it has been incorporated into my peaceful projects in such a way that reasonably requires exclusive access and control. Not because of some government decree. Then (and only then) would libertarians protect that property right.

Suppose I incorporated a very large piece of North America into my peaceful project, which I term the "States United." I require exclusive access and control to the territory of this "States United" in order to keep the peace; for example, on my own territory, I can hire a private security force, bind them to contracts, and term them the "Oplice", who are charged with upholding my property rights and the contracts I have made with the people leasing my land (these contracts not being negotiated by myself personally, but by a private but contractually bound decision-making body called the "Progress".)

I'll drop the analogy here because we all know where it's going, but whether a project is peaceful or not depends pretty much only what property belongs to who

How could such a USSR person/corporation make such a claim over such a large territory and it be peaceful and just? It is contradictory.

The person/corporation is the trustee and steward of the lands which he owns, to which all property was ceded to, by common law, several millennia ago.

[Voluntarism]

The person/corporation is the trustee and steward of the lands which he owns, to which all property was ceded to, by common law, several millennia ago.

That still doesn't make sense. How did they show that they have a valid claim to all of that property? They could only obtain such a claim under an unjust property rights system. If so, such an unjust historical transfer would be open to dispute.

It seems to me that you are saying that someone who can wield enough force in a given geographic region can create a government and force any people in its domain to abide by their will. I don't think that's in dispute, but it's hardly Libertarian.

[ThereBeDragons]

That still doesn't make sense. How did they show that they have a valid claim to all of that property? They could only obtain such a claim under an unjust property rights system. If so, such an unjust historical transfer would be open to dispute.

It may be that many miniature corporations voluntarily joined together to form a large corporation, which subsequently inherited the previous valid claims of the smaller corporations (the original, smallest corporations perhaps being only the size of a clan unit). Many states have amalgamated themselves throughout history.

In practice, of course, the use of force was invariably involved somewhere, but that is the same as with all ancestral property claims.

[Voluntarism]

Aah. So really we just have an extremely large company with many thousands (if not millions) of shareholders. Even in such a world there would still be large tracts of unowned land between the lands of each small corporation (so not at a USSR equivalent yet).

[Nunt]

That still doesn't make sense. How did they show that they have a valid claim to all of that property? They could only obtain such a claim under an unjust property rights system. If so, such an unjust historical transfer would be open to dispute.

It may be that many miniature corporations voluntarily joined together to form a large corporation, which subsequently inherited the previous valid claims of the smaller corporations (the original, smallest corporations perhaps being only the size of a clan unit). Many states have amalgamated themselves throughout history.

In practice, of course, the use of force was invariably involved somewhere, but that is the same as with all ancestral property claims.[/quote]

The fact that you would need to demonstrate to use a resource, would make it impossible for anyone to have as much territory as a government. Say you would merge the 100 largest companies. How much land would they actually be using in the US? Not much. And they wouldn't have anything to say about what other people do in their homes, or what other companies do.

Thats the major difference. Governments own land because they have a monopoly of force, not because they are actually using the land.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry, what do "social constructs" for a minority of property rights issues have to do with whether Libertarian society is coherent?

If you scroll up to the top of the page, you will see that you responded to this quote:

Really? Then what gives one guy the right to decide where the peg shall be? What doesn't give the other the right to move past the peg? If you are going to argue that people have some absolute right to be able to own private property then you have to justify it in a sense where it is not simply a societal construct. (as it still is in your example).

Since you are unable to justify private property in a sense where it is not simply a societal construct, how are you going to argue that people have some absolute right to be able to own private property?

---------------------

I think that the libertarians are using a culturally specific notion of justice.

Imagine, if you will, talking to a 17th century Frenchman. How far would you have to transform his paradigms before he agree with you about what is just?