Basis of land ownership

erimir · #1 09-23-2014, 10:03 PM

So one thing that has always struck me as a problem for libertarianism is the basis of their notion of property.

They always like to talk about cases like, you worked mowing people's lawns, or you invented something, got investment to manufacture it, yada yada, doesn't the money you make belong to you? Why can the government tax it, that's theft. So on and so forth. And it seems like you did create the value, which is why it's compelling to many people.

But they don't usually talk about the base case, which is land ownership. And since raw materials come from the land, it follows that all property ownership flows from that. Because you can't manufacture any products if you don't have the materials (and you'd probably also need a factory which sits on land that you have the right to use). And you certainly did not create the land, meaning they need a different basis for it.

So that got me to wondering about whether there is a coherent account of land ownership in libertarian ideology. It seems to me that most libertarians haven't put any real thought into it, but I'm interested in hearing the best case for it. I was also wondering about non-libertarian accounts of property.

Anyway, as it stands I haven't heard a compelling account from libertarians. What I've heard is variations on this: "The foundation of my rights claim is built on the right to life as a human. By extension, the right to life requires work to sustain life, and combining work with the land development brings land rights."

You work the land, and that gives you a right to it. Some like to pretend that all libertarian philosophy follows from the Non-Aggression Principle (or some Randian bullshit), but it does not. It seems to be another axiom. It also seems to discount uses of land for hunting and gathering type activities (which leads to problems for the many libertarian ranchers). It also does not naturally provide an account of transfer of land ownership without further complications to the axiom. Nor does it explain how land rights persist in the absence of active development. But they don't want to say that land rights are extinguished once you are no longer resident and working the land yourself.

But even if you accept that axiom, the fact is that much land ownership does not flow from such things. If you follow the chain of ownership back, you're going to find plenty of aggression involved in the acquisition of land. Conquest was involved in basically every place that is not currently inhabited by the first human settlers (and even if it is, there may have been interpersonal violence). Much private land ownership was granted by governments, which they view as illegitimate.

"But!" the libertarian replies, "How can I be held responsible and be punished for my ancestor's actions? Your "original initiation of force" sounds like original sin, and is just as indefensible." Well, one way to support this would be to say the original land rights expire when the original holder dies, so the conquest of the land was unjust, but those who then took the land and continued using it productively generated new rights. This causes problems for inheritance, however. They would not like to hold that the heir has no more right to the land than some squatter who comes along and takes it before the heir can take possession. It also suggests that you can rightfully own what you have unjustly acquired, which seems paradoxical. But if it is not rightfully owned, then it is hard to say it is punishment to return it to the rightful owner.

Then they might say there is too much confusion about who the original owner is. But this does not cover every case they would want it to cover, since there is evidence in many cases. This would cause quite a bit of chaos, even if it is only a fraction of the amount of land that could be claimed with perfect knowledge.

Then they might say, well, enough time has elapsed. However, any such cutoff will be arbitrary. It's hard to justify land ownership as some sacred right that must not be violated by taxes or regulation if it relies on an arbitrary cutoff date. If the cutoff is too recent, it leads to perverse incentives such as what we see in Israel, where stealing land and holding it for long enough creates "facts on the ground." If it's too remote, then claims from decades or centuries ago can be revived.

Alternatively, if we accept land rights as flowing from societal agreement, enforced by government, it seems that taxation and regulation are justified and libertarianism could only seek justification from practical benefits. And they have to argue it for all people, not just the rich people who "deserve" all they have. But the evidence there is, shall we say, lacking.

Funnily enough, it seems that libertarians like to simultaneously argue that libertarianism is correct based on ethical precepts (consequences be damned!) but also that it leads to better consequences for everyone. Which would be fine, except they seem to like to switch to one or the other when their argument in one direction starts to fail. E.g. talk about Sweden and if they concede that it is, in fact, not a hellscape but a decent place to live, they will switch and say that it isn't really successful because they don't respect property.

Dragar · #2 09-24-2014, 03:00 PM

Ownership in general is a tricky issue (trickier than people give it credit).

(I wonder why you never meet any libertarian scientists - "shouldn't we all be paying fees to the Einstein estate whenever we use the field equations?")

chunksmediocrites · #3 09-24-2014, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erimir

You work the land, and that gives you a right to it. Some like to pretend that all libertarian philosophy follows from the Non-Aggression Principle (or some Randian bullshit), but it does not. It seems to be another axiom. It also seems to discount uses of land for hunting and gathering type activities (which leads to problems for the many libertarian ranchers). It also does not naturally provide an account of transfer of land ownership without further complications to the axiom. Nor does it explain how land rights persist in the absence of active development. But they don't want to say that land rights are extinguished once you are no longer resident and working the land yourself.

Here's Rothbard mentioning his theories in this Mises.org piece where he discusses who owns water:

Quote:

...it seems clear to me that neither society nor the State has a right — a moral or an economic claim — to ownership of land. Production clearly means to me that human labor works with nature-given material and transforms it into more usable condition. All production does this. If a man is entitled to the product he creates, he also is entitled to the nature-given land that he first finds and brings into productivity. In other words, land including water, mines, and the like — in an unused, primitive state is economically unowned and worthless and therefore should be legally unowned. It should be owned legally by that person who first makes use of it. This is a principle which we might call "first ownership to first user."

It seems to me that this principle is consistent with libertarian doctrine, and that it is the only principle of first ownership that makes sense in terms of that doctrine. Now, the first-ownership-to-first-user principle is a method of bringing unused, unowned property into ownership — into the market. After this is done, it is clear that the property, having been mixed with the labor and other effort of the first owner, passes completely and absolutely into his hands. From then on, it is his property to do with as he wishes. It may turn out to be uneconomic to use the property after a few years, and it will lie fallow. To leave his land fallow, however, should be an owner's privilege, for he should continue to have the unquestioned right to do with the property as he sees fit. Once the first user obtains the property, it must be absolutely his.

As you mentioned, the whole "first use" idea is pretty specious, and seems to presume no claims before colonialism/ capitalism may apply. Who gets to say that the land is in a primitive state and therefore unowned, especially given hunter-gatherer or migrating societies that used the land prior? How is ownership/ non-ownership stated or determined if the "first use" individual is dead, or far away? Especially since Rothbard's argument is that once an individual gains something economically from a piece of land, that they then own it without restriction and can remove it from economic use for as long as they like? There's some big holes.

erimir · #4 09-24-2014, 08:04 PM

Libertarians are entitled to have multiple axioms if they like, of course. But for multiple reasons they tend to argue that everything flows from the "non-aggression principle" or "self-ownership" or possible one of a couple other simple axioms. One reason is simplicity, and that is appealing for people who don't like to see shades of gray.

The other reason is that the non-aggression principles or self-ownership sounds like something everyone can agree on and thus if everything flows from it, everyone should be libertarian. Both in the sense that they can more easily convince other people and in the sense that there's something morally defective about people who aren't, since they must be rejecting the NAP. Of course, the reality is that they need to fold in a lot of assumptions about what is "aggression" or "ownership" in order for that to be true, but they prefer to pretend that isn't so.

The fact that their notions of property don't naturally flow from the NAP or from the goal of maximizing liberty is thus a problem, because it's a lot harder to argue for "land rights do not expire when the land is left fallow" as a bedrock principle that everyone does or should share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Here's Rothbard mentioning his theories in this Mises.org piece where he discusses who owns water:

Quote:

...it seems clear to me that neither society nor the State has a right — a moral or an economic claim — to ownership of land. Production clearly means to me that human labor works with nature-given material and transforms it into more usable condition. All production does this. If a man is entitled to the product he creates, he also is entitled to the nature-given land that he first finds and brings into productivity. In other words, land including water, mines, and the like — in an unused, primitive state is economically unowned and worthless and therefore should be legally unowned. It should be owned legally by that person who first makes use of it. This is a principle which we might call "first ownership to first user."

It seems to me that this principle is consistent with libertarian doctrine, and that it is the only principle of first ownership that makes sense in terms of that doctrine. Now, the first-ownership-to-first-user principle is a method of bringing unused, unowned property into ownership — into the market. After this is done, it is clear that the property, having been mixed with the labor and other effort of the first owner, passes completely and absolutely into his hands. From then on, it is his property to do with as he wishes. It may turn out to be uneconomic to use the property after a few years, and it will lie fallow. To leave his land fallow, however, should be an owner's privilege, for he should continue to have the unquestioned right to do with the property as he sees fit. Once the first user obtains the property, it must be absolutely his.

As you mentioned, the whole "first use" idea is pretty specious, and seems to presume no claims before colonialism/ capitalism may apply. Who gets to say that the land is in a primitive state and therefore unowned, especially given hunter-gatherer or migrating societies that used the land prior? How is ownership/ non-ownership stated or determined if the "first use" individual is dead, or far away? Especially since Rothbard's argument is that once an individual gains something economically from a piece of land, that they then own it without restriction and can remove it from economic use for as long as they like? There's some big holes.

So first-come-first-served is supposed to be the bedrock principle upon which our rights are based?

Anyway, things that do not flow from Rothbard's self-ownership principle, which seems to be his first axiom:

ownership of things produced
right to bequest
right to inheritance (apparently self-ownership means dead people have rights?) - He seems to acknowledge that these are additional axioms, but I'm not sure if he just means that they are corollaries that follow soon after.
mixing labor with land creates land rights
those land rights are absolute and eternal
land rights do not expire if the land is left fallow
water flows are owned the same way as land, despite the same water never being there twice

I also note that his idea of fisheries being privately owned suggests that hunting and gathering should lead to land ownership. Of course, he could argue that the US is all built on stolen land, but give some excuse for why we shouldn't restore as much of it as possible to the rightful owners.

He also says that one may pollute a river and thus pass pollutants onto the property of those downstream, but one may not dam a river and flood land upstream without the permission or ownership of that land.

This guy is one of the leading lights of the libertarian movement? What a dim bulb.

ETA: Some powerful stupid in the comments there also.

chunksmediocrites · #5 09-24-2014, 08:40 PM

Some libertarians respond to a question about Ayn Rand's position on American Indians and land rights. The Libertarians who respond to the question say she was wrong.
Rand's infamous quote:

Quote:

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using… [W]hat was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence. Their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out, so that you can live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it…. Any white person who could bring the element of civilization had the right to take over this country.”

erimir · #6 09-24-2014, 08:50 PM

Rothbard also doesn't address the elephant in the room, which is that much or most land owned today was not acquired via a chain of bequests or sales leading back to a proper first-use claim. Given how absolute the first-use claim seems to be (it is eternal no matter how long the person abandons the property!) and his recognition of inheritance*, this seems like no small problem for the current world order.

It's nice that there are libertarians who acknowledge that the Native Americans were wronged, but I don't exactly see them proposing any restitution either. Ask them about that, and they'll probably bring out the old trope about how those Indians stole the land from other Indians anyway, ignoring that this argument creates a justification for stealing their land as well.

Is there any libertarian with a more coherent argument than Rothbard?

*Maybe he only recognizes those who have made their wills explicit, but I doubt he'd want to commit the idea that land reverts to no man's land if there's no explicit will.

Clutch Munny · #7 09-26-2014, 09:02 AM

Those farmers who let a field lie fallow for a year? They're just asking for some libertarian to recognize that this is unused property, ripe for the taking. Or some rich motherfucker who buys a huge estate just to be surrounded by quiet land on which nothing is done? "First use" just waiting to happen!

Watser? · #8 09-26-2014, 09:19 AM

Yeah, libertarians are well-known for their support for Brazilians landless farm workers occupying unused land or for the European squatter movements who occupied empty buildings at a time when a lot of people were homeless.

AynMisesLibertarian · #9 09-26-2014, 11:34 AM

I can own my watch and my personal pc why I can not own land?

The only entity that could punishes you for taking some pieces of land is big government, in a natural world without government people own the fruit of their labor so their land

It is not really hard to understand, I feel like someone that is explaining how the world works to some 5 year old with mental retardation, really

Stormlight · #10 09-26-2014, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I can own my watch and my personal pc why I can not own land?

I can own my watch and my personal personal computer why I can not own you? Is easy.

God, you're a dumb fuck. :laugh:

Watser? · #11 09-26-2014, 11:42 AM

You can own him, he has a right to sell himself on the open market for, let's say, 200 euros.

Stormlight · #12 09-26-2014, 12:22 PM

These religious fanatics can be really funny. "It is so because it is so because it's normal!! It is not hard to understand!" :lol:

AynMisesLibertarian · #13 09-26-2014, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormlight

These religious fanatics can be really funny. "It is so because it is so because it's normal!! It is not hard to understand!" :lol:

those leftist fanatics "it is not right because it is so so we must charge the entire world instead of adapting ".

The science of economics and politics must deal with the world as it is, using statistical model to analyze how improve it given human nature

Not going full "literati" and speak about philosophy and words,words,words.

Nerds vs literati, the nerds are winning and you are losing

Stormlight · #14 09-26-2014, 01:27 PM

I know that words are too difficult for you but give it a try. Answer the OP instead of posting nonsense. Just for once in your miserable life try to have a thought of your own.

chunksmediocrites · #15 09-26-2014, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

in a natural world without government people own the fruit of their labor so their land

How is our current or historical society that includes government not a "natural world", and how does this viewpoint jibe with Objectivism?

What are your examples of a society without government, and how did they handle land ownership?

Because it sounds like you just made up a bunch of bullshit to support your opinions. Which would also contradict your description of Libertarians (at least in this instance) as a rational, logical, fact-based system.

Also I have verified that you are wrong, because I put your thoughts on reddit and it got downvoted into oblivion. Thank goodness the wisdom of any position can be determined by reddit algorithms!

Stormlight · #16 09-26-2014, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

How is our current or historical society that includes government not a "natural world", and how does this viewpoint jibe with Objectivism?

BECAUSE OF REASONS! God you asshole retards!

Stormlight · #17 09-26-2014, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

try to go on reddit and see what the average people think about feminism and the oppression culture

hint: it is nothing like here, I give you 10 minutes before being literally assaulted by hundread of dick pics and death threats

I kid you not. He actually wrote that. Not ironically.

chunksmediocrites · #18 09-26-2014, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

...in a natural world without government people own the fruit of their labor so their land

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

The science of economics and politics must deal with the world as it is

One of these is not like the other, AML. :chin:

Stephen Maturin · #19 09-26-2014, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I can own my watch and my personal pc why I can not own land?

So your exclusive support for the notion of land ownership is a spectacularly dumbfuck analogy that rains failure across multiple time zones. Check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

The only entity that could punishes you for taking some pieces of land is big government, in a natural world without government people own the fruit of their labor so their land

In the "natural world without government" Imma take "your" land and everything else in which you claim an ownership interest, provided that I have a better private army with bigger guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

It is not really hard to understand

Except for you, apparently. :pat:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watser?

You can own him, he has a right to sell himself on the open market for, let's say, 200 euros.

He can try, but the Invisible Hand will fist him vigorously until he drops that grossly overinflated price.

Also, HUNDREAD OF DICK PICS

Stephen Maturin · #20 09-26-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Those farmers who let a field lie fallow for a year? They're just asking for some libertarian to recognize that this is unused property, ripe for the taking.

Too goddamn right. And "first use" in this instance clearly includes simply standing on the land and flaccidly thumping one's chest while reciting the Galt tirade from Atlas Shrugged. Ain't no reddit-dwelling lolbert gonna stake a claim by actually doing an honest day's farm work or anything.

Ensign Steve · #21 09-26-2014, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And "first use" in this instance clearly includes simply standing on the land and flaccidly thumping one's chest while reciting the Galt tirade from Atlas Shrugged.

False! You also need a flag.

Do you have a flag? - Eddie Izzard - YouTube

specious_reasons · #22 09-26-2014, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I can own my watch and my personal pc why I can not own land?

It's because your parents haven't paid for it yet.

erimir · #23 09-26-2014, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

I can own my watch and my personal pc why I can not own land?

Because land and computers are different kinds of things. Land exists without humans doing anything. You're putting the cart before the horse - your watch and PC are made of materials extracted from the land. The ownership of those materials depends on land ownership - especially since materials extracted from land tend to belong to the land owner, not the person doing the labor of extracting. The owner of the mine owns the materials by virtue of land ownership, not by virtue of labor. The producer of your computer bought the parts from someone who bought the raw materials from someone who owns a mine and only owns the materials by virtue of that land ownership. So your ownership of that PC is dependent on land ownership, not the other way around.

Anyway, adults are talking. Nobody was saying you couldn't own land, I was asking about the philosophical/ethical basis of land ownership.

Quote:

in a natural world without government people own the fruit of their labor so their land

Land is not the fruit of your labor. Land existed before any humans took their first shit, much less labored on anything.

Quote:

It is not really hard to understand, I feel like someone that is explaining how the world works to some 5 year old with mental retardation, really

More accurately, you feel like a simpleton who is trying to explain to someone more intelligent how the world is simple rather than complicated.

"It's not really hard to understand, we can't be descended from monkeys, because there are still monkeys!"

ShottleBop · #24 09-28-2014, 04:59 AM

Just appeared in my FB feed:

Libertopia!

JoeP · #25 09-28-2014, 01:32 PM

Some good links in that article, including this to a true Libertarian paradise: Kowloon Walled City: Life in the City of Darkness | South China Morning Post

It lasted for close to 100 years! Take that, antilibertarians!