[Nunt]

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?

You would have similar problems explaining to him the virtues of a representative democracy or a seperation between church and state.

[Pants-of-dog]

You would have similar problems explaining to him the virtues of a representative democracy or a separation between church and state.

viewtopic.php?p=14353666#p14353666

[Eran]

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

No, If it is uninhabited (by which I also mean unimproved and unused), the existence of a formal property title is itself unjust. Whoever granted this title had no right to do so.

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".)

This is where common sense of trusted arbitrators comes in. I'm not sure why non-libertarians tend to assume that NAP-related disputes would be resolved by a computer or insensible person.

How large a territory you can incorporate into a project depends on the nature of the project, of course. But in most cases you would need, at the very least, fence that area, and demonstrate why it is reasonable to require exclusive access to it. It is very hard to see how any large (by national standards) parcel of land could fit the bill.

The largest parcels of land that I could see "homesteaded" this way would be the equivalent of National Parks - areas of wilderness incorporated into nature-preserving projects.

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?

That's very easy. We advocate a legal system premised upon the Non Aggression Principle. A sufficient (but not necessary!) condition for adopting such a system is that taking another person's property (or, more accurately, physically interfering with another person's peaceful project) is absolutely morally wrong. This is SecretSquirrel's position, but not that of most libertarians (or even most Anarcho-Capitalists).

A far less stringent condition that would still make the NAP the best basis for a legal system is that NAP violations are normally wrong, and also (1) society has good tools to remedy the immoral consequences of wrongly adhering to the NAP (in the rare occasions that such adherence is not morally-justified), and (2) that entrusting institutions with the right to violate the NAP is extremely dangerous, and can easily lead to massive and ethically-wrong NAP violations.

Specific societies give concrete meaning to the NAP. However, its moral validity (under normal circumstances) doesn't depend on societal conventions.

Compare the NAP with the right of self-defence. I can state in absolute terms that people have a right to self-defence, even while the exact parameters of that right (right to own weapons, reasonableness of pre-emptive attacks, etc.) will depend on society.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's very easy. We advocate a legal system premised upon the Non Aggression Principle. A sufficient (but not necessary!) condition for adopting such a system is that taking another person's property (or, more accurately, physically interfering with another person's peaceful project) is absolutely morally wrong. This is SecretSquirrel's position, but not that of most libertarians (or even most Anarcho-Capitalists).

A far less stringent condition that would still make the NAP the best basis for a legal system is that NAP violations are normally wrong, and also (1) society has good tools to remedy the immoral consequences of wrongly adhering to the NAP (in the rare occasions that such adherence is not morally-justified), and (2) that entrusting institutions with the right to violate the NAP is extremely dangerous, and can easily lead to massive and ethically-wrong NAP violations.

The NAP itself is a societal construct. It is what certain people believe should guide interpersonal relations.

Specific societies give concrete meaning to the NAP. However, its moral validity (under normal circumstances) doesn't depend on societal conventions.

Compare the NAP with the right of self-defence. I can state in absolute terms that people have a right to self-defence, even while the exact parameters of that right (right to own weapons, reasonableness of pre-emptive attacks, etc.) will depend on society.

I am not sure I agree with that. To me, it seems that self-defence is an objective fact while property is not, thus making the two more different than alike.

[Rich]

It seems the libertarians here basically support the land programme of the Social Revolutionary Party in pre 1917 Russia. This programme was accepted by the Bolsheviks. It was the adoption of the non Marxist land programme that allowed the Bolsheviks to triumph. Of course once securely in power they reneged on it. Maybe hard core Libertarians share a common understanding of what legitimate property is, but its sure as hell different from most people who loosely consider themselves as libertarians.

Libertarians can't even agree on when self ownership begins.

[Voluntarism]

It seems the libertarians here basically support the land programme of the Social Revolutionary Party in pre 1917 Russia. This programme was accepted by the Bolsheviks. It was the adoption of the non Marxist land programme that allowed the Bolsheviks to triumph. Of course once securely in power they reneged on it. Maybe hard core Libertarians share a common understanding of what legitimate property is, but its sure as hell different from most people who loosely consider themselves as libertarians.

Do you happen to have a link? My knowledge on that era and the land programme you mention is basically zero.

Libertarians can't even agree on when self ownership begins.

What do you mean sorry?

If you just mean when people acquire full rights, then there will always be a distinction between when one acquires full legal rights and when one should be treated as though they have full rights by the people who know them. This is simply because of the process of growing from an egg (with no mind) to a baby (with a mind but no understanding or respect of rights), to a child, to (hopefully) an adult fully capable of understanding and respecting rights.

[Eran]

The NAP itself is a societal construct. It is what certain people believe should guide interpersonal relations.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "societal construct". The NAP is a moral/legal principle adopted by many people as individuals and, in practice, by many societies, especially when it comes to internal relations.

The individuals who adopt the NAP may do so while believing it is an absolute moral calling, or merely an excellent guide for organising our political lives.

What is the point that results from characterising the NAP (or the derived property rights) as a "societal construct"?

I am not sure I agree with that. To me, it seems that self-defence is an objective fact while property is not, thus making the two more different than alike.

The two are very similar. In simple situations, it is fairly easy to tell when an action constitutes self-defence or when an object is one's legitimate property. In complex societies, situations will arise that would be disputed by reasonable, well-meaning people.

Does my right for self-defence mean that I may keep a gun at home? How about a baseball club (I don't play baseball), or a guard dog? What about walking around with those self-defence items?

Obviously I may incapacitate an assailant once they attacked me. But do I have to wait for the attack? What if said assailant, having made many credible and public threats, appears to be on his way to attacking me? Where does one draw the line?

The answer is that there is no obvious, clear answer in all situations. It must ultimately be left to the judgement of wise (hopefully) people such as judges.

The exact same issue applies to property rights. If I travelled to the middle-of-nowhere, cleared and fenced a field, built a house and started cultivating the land, the (feed and cultivated) field and the house are clearly my property. But what about the little wood nearby where I occasionally go to cut my lumber? Or

The NAP itself is a societal construct. It is what certain people believe should guide interpersonal relations.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "societal construct". The NAP is a moral/legal principle adopted by many people as individuals and, in practice, by many societies, especially when it comes to internal relations.

The very same phenomenon can be observed with Constitutional interpretation. If government (in the US) passes a law prohibiting people from criticising the President, that would clearly violate the First Amendment. But reasonable people debated whether prohibitions on burning the flag, commercial advertising or pornography are or are not violations. the stream (and the road to the stream) where I collect my water? The issues start getting more complicated, requiring judgement.

(edited to remove duplication - thanks Nunt!)

[Nunt]

@Eran: reread your post, you seem to have copy pasted some things twice. Theres a chunk in the middle thats double and also the last paragraph.

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "societal construct". The NAP is a moral/legal principle adopted by many people as individuals and, in practice, by many societies, especially when it comes to internal relations.

The individuals who adopt the NAP may do so while believing it is an absolute moral calling, or merely an excellent guide for organising our political lives.

What is the point that results from characterising the NAP (or the derived property rights) as a "societal construct"?

This ties in with the conversation in the other thread, where I (and apparently mikema63 in this thread) question the claim that this set of rights or NAP paradigm are objective.

From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter much.

The two are very similar. In simple situations, it is fairly easy to tell when an action constitutes self-defence or when an object is one's legitimate property. In complex societies, situations will arise that would be disputed by reasonable, well-meaning people.

Does my right for self-defence mean that I may keep a gun at home? How about a baseball club (I don't play baseball), or a guard dog? What about walking around with those self-defence items?

Obviously I may incapacitate an assailant once they attacked me. But do I have to wait for the attack? What if said assailant, having made many credible and public threats, appears to be on his way to attacking me? Where does one draw the line?

The answer is that there is no obvious, clear answer in all situations. It must ultimately be left to the judgement of wise (hopefully) people such as judges.

The exact same issue applies to property rights. If I travelled to the middle-of-nowhere, cleared and fenced a field, built a house and started cultivating the land, the (feed and cultivated) field and the house are clearly my property. But what about the little wood nearby where I occasionally go to cut my lumber? Or the stream (and the road to the stream) where I collect my water? The issues start getting more complicated, requiring judgement.

The very same phenomenon can be observed with Constitutional interpretation. If government (in the US) passes a law prohibiting people from criticising the President, that would clearly violate the First Amendment. But reasonable people debated whether prohibitions on burning the flag, commercial advertising or pornography are or are not violations. the stream (and the road to the stream) where I collect my water? The issues start getting more complicated, requiring judgement.

The very same phenomenon can be observed with Constitutional interpretation. If government (in the US) passes a law prohibiting people from criticising the President, that would clearly violate the First Amendment. But reasonable people debated whether prohibitions on burning the flag, commercial advertising or pornography are or are not violations.

Two things:

First of all, there are no uninhabited lands. This has been the case for the last 12,000 years or so.

Secondly, even if there was, it does not seem clear to me that you just get to own it according to your definition of ownership.

[Eran]

There are many uninhabited areas on Earth. Much of the Australian Outback and the Arctic regions, of course, but also much of the Continental US.

Even in Israel, most of the Negev desert is uninhabited.

[Rich]

Replace non aggression principle with non aggression delusion and you've got a useful concept. Most people delude themselves into believing that they are the victims and others are the aggressors. No doubt Jefferson with his huge number of slaves considered himself a non aggressor. Same with the Texans who reintroduced slavery, the British when they forced China to buy Opium or more recently small government Libertarian Sarah Palin when she supported the Bridge to nowhere.

[Pants-of-dog]

There are many uninhabited areas on Earth. Much of the Australian Outback

Not really. Aboriginal people claim that land. The only sizable area in the Outback that is unused by people is the Simpson desert.

and the Arctic regions,

The Inuit and other northern indigenous groups.

of course, but also much of the Continental US.

Again, indigenous people are forgotten.

Even in Israel, most of the Negev desert is uninhabited.

However, the Israelis and perhaps the Bedouin would probably not appreciate you taking over their water sources.

[mum]

Not really. Aboriginal people claim that land. The only sizable area in the Outback that is unused by people is the Simpson desert.

Thats a pretty map.
Are you claiming that most of Australia is legitimately claimed ?
How many of these regions have existing aboriginal groups alive ?
How many of these regions are currently being used?
Do you think an historical claim should have an expiry date?
At what point does land become free again ?

[Voluntarism]

Interestingly the recent Australian history of recognising the valid claims of Aboriginal people around Australia (of which there have been many) and returning (principally crown land) title back to Aboriginal communities under special freehold title is actually very much in tune with Libertarian philosophy regarding property rights (particularly because the British never sought consent nor was it given yet there was and continued to be, clear valid claims by indigenous groups). It is actually the increasing movement toward Libertarianism in Australia which made the whole Aboriginal land acts possible. I have two beefs with the whole thing however:

1. The aboriginal communities themselves have strong anti-Libertarian notions of property and deem the land to be forever inalienable with some bullshit notion of "the tribe" and therefore view it as never being able to be bought acquired or forfeited by members of the community and (as far as I am aware) do not allow proper recognition of tribal members private property rights in using the resources. More enlightened groups do allow access and rental of their lands to outsiders (with conditions) but they need to apply the same principles internally.

2. The areas are generally very large which, although historically suitable for tribes surviving in the very harsh climate with scant biomass etc means that the remaining tribal members have been granted monopoly rents over massive regions with many tribes in NT and SA being granted well over 10 square kilometres per person. Given their ability to charge for access to and use of any of the land (not just limited to use/interference of the resources they needed for survival) some groups consequently derive large incomes from mining projects which are totally unrelated to their legitimate claims over the land. Recognising the valid historical claims of non-British notions of property use is one thing, but to then apply (slightly distorted) British notions of property title over vast swathes of the country was probably incorrect and will continue to negatively affect social and economic development of many indigenous groups for decades to come.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats a pretty map.
Are you claiming that most of Australia is legitimately claimed ?

Yes, according to the laws of the inhabitants.

How many of these regions have existing aboriginal groups alive ?

I don't see why they all would not still be alive. Most areas of Canada still have existing aboriginal groups, despite the fact that many whites think they all died.

I can see why it's convenient for white people to think that all the indigenous people died. That way they don't run the risk of feeling guilty about being on native land.

How many of these regions are currently being used?

According to whose cultural definition of "used"?

Do you think an historical claim should have an expiry date?

Now I understand why libertarians do not support indigenous nationhood movements, despite the fact that indigenous history is a clear example of gov't actively passing laws to enrich themselves at the expense of the people who actually own the land.

It's because you want them all to die so that you can take their land and create Galt's Gulch.

At what point does land become free again ?

That would depend on the treaties.

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

Interestingly the recent Australian history of recognising the valid claims of Aboriginal people around Australia (of which there have been many) and returning (principally crown land) title back to Aboriginal communities under special freehold title is actually very much in tune with Libertarian philosophy regarding property rights (particularly because the British never sought consent nor was it given yet there was and continued to be, clear valid claims by indigenous groups).

I completely agree.

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 have two beefs with the whole thing however:

1. The aboriginal communities themselves have strong anti-Libertarian notions of property and deem the land to be forever inalienable with some bullshit notion of "the tribe" and therefore view it as never being able to be bought acquired or forfeited by members of the community and (as far as I am aware) do not allow proper recognition of tribal members private property rights in using the resources. More enlightened groups do allow access and rental of their lands to outsiders (with conditions) but they need to apply the same principles internally.

The aboriginal views on land ownership are not libertarian. This is because their relationship with the land is based on millenia of living off the land in a sustainable manner, and is not based on European notions of "adding value" to the land by removing its valuable resources and using up the land for your selfish short term gain.

2. The areas are generally very large which, although historically suitable for tribes surviving in the very harsh climate with scant biomass etc means that the remaining tribal members have been granted monopoly rents over massive regions with many tribes in NT and SA being granted well over 10 square kilometres per person. Given their ability to charge for access to and use of any of the land (not just limited to use/interference of the resources they needed for survival) some groups consequently derive large incomes from mining projects which are totally unrelated to their legitimate claims over the land. Recognising the valid historical claims of non-British notions of property use is one thing, but to then apply (slightly distorted) British notions of property title over vast swathes of the country was probably incorrect and will continue to negatively affect social and economic development of many indigenous groups for decades to come.

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.

[Phred]

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.

So by what criteria that you will accept as valid can someone go to uninhabited land and claim it?


Phred

[Brother of Karl]

There is no longer any such thing as unclaimed land on the planet Earth. Unclaimed land hasn't existed since world nations claimed sections of Antarctica in 1959, and probably much sooner for all but a few other tiny corners of the globe. I don't know why libertarians keep claiming as their example that "if you find a piece of unclaimed land, you can make it your property". That is a colonial mindset through and through and hasn't been in tune with reality since the 1800s. Even then, the uninhabited land was used by first nations, as has been stated by POD many times.

[Phred]

There is no longer any such thing as unclaimed land on the planet Earth.

So you believe all current land claims are valid? That definitely puts you in the minority here, but let's run with it. Okay then, alter the question to:

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

[Pants-of-dog]

Please go back and reread thread so that you can understand the point being discussed.

[Potemkin]

So you believe all current land claims are valid? That definitely puts you in the minority here, but let's run with it.

So what are you going to do? Force the current owners of the land to relinquish their legal claim to it? Would this be with or without compensation? And who pays this compensation, assuming it's paid at all? And do you think that current landowners will just passively accept this?

And people accuse Communists of being 'utopian'.