/liberty/ - Liberty

Anything that is scarce and can be embordered (which is to say made scarce) is property, which includes bodies of water, air, and undeveloped land. Suggesting that undeveloped land cannot be property because no labor is involved doesn't hold up from an economics perspective. Undeveloped land by definition holds some value to some people because value is subjective, therefore there exists a market for undeveloped land. Trade in undeveloped land infringes on nobody's rights, therefore there is no reason why such trade would be restricted in the free market. Declaring that only labor-produced goods may be traded is an arbitrary restriction on the market with neither economic nor ethical justification, therefore it will not occur.

Homesteading claims can be maintained indefinitely, including in absentia, so long as such a claim has been marked through emborderment, and so long as the claim is enforceable by the current owner. Squatters will be gassed.

>>95805

>DDD

That's just an F

>>95812

>land ownership without some form of productive use is not, for the most part, tenable unless you can offload enforcement costs on the government

Well, not really. Sometimes preservation of the land may be a separate goal, be it for environment, further investment and development or just aesthetics. The general consensus is that you have to claim the land through labor, i.e. build a fence, occupy it or use it in some other way and not just declare something your own. You also lose the claim if the land bears no sign of your claim, i.e. if you sown a field but it regrew with grass again so that it's indistinguishable from other unclaimed land out there then your claim can be questioned. That's the most convenient way to resolve property claims without application of force.

>>95813

>Preservation, further investment, aesthetics…

These are all perfectly valid uses for land

>The general consensus is that you have to claim the land through labor, i.e. build a fence, occupy it or use it in some other way and not just declare something your own. You also lose the claim if the land bears no sign of your claim, i.e. if you sown a field but it regrew with grass again so that it's indistinguishable from other unclaimed land out there then your claim can be questioned.

I absolutely agree. I only have a bone to pick with people who say it'd be perfectly natural in ancapistan for people to claim vast swathes of land arbitrarily and expect others to respect those claims.

>>95819

>I only have a bone to pick with people who say it'd be perfectly natural in ancapistan for people to claim vast swathes of land arbitrarily and expect others to respect those claims

I don't think that there are any ancaps that'd claim something like that, only strawmans, as it would cause immense legal trouble to resolve conflicts and it pretty baseless claim. The closest thing there is are views on the origins of legitimate property - some say that it should be claimed through labor, while others propose that only force can serve as a mean to do that. I agree with the latter position more but i do think that the way i described is the most convenient to resolve disputes in a legal system without actually resorting to comparing participants' force capabilities.

>>95824

I was responding to

>>95788

who came close to saying that. It would be useful for him to define "emborderment" to clarify what he means by it.

>>95805

Good definition, but it seems redundant to me. All of what you listed falls pretty well under "excludable."

>>95812

By that logic, simply homesteading infringes on the rights of any other homesteader that also wished to settle on the land. Legal theories deal with what is and what is not, not speculative might-have-beens. I believe I did mention in my post that any claim made would have to be enforceable, and what I meant by that is the owner must be able to clearly define the boundaries of his property, and must reasonably be able to defend his claim, either through his own means or through hired security. I don't think you understand what is meant by economic sense; even if you see no value in an empty plot of land, that doesn't mean someone else might. A person's subjective valuation of pristine land might be higher than the massive costs it incurs, which means in his eyes it's profitable. The national parks are basically plots of undeveloped land, they bring in millions in revenue every year, and would be worth billions on the open market if sold. That's not just a spook.

>>95831

I use "emborderment" the way Hoppe does, which is to say the creation of a boundary or the denotation of exclusivity. The most common form in homesteading is a literal fence, a barrier between your land and everything else. Branding cattle is also a form of emborderment. In the case of spacesteading or colonization of the moon, you would probably see "virtual" emborderment, through digital beacons or somesuch. The precise form emborderment takes is irrelevant, so long as it clearly separates your property from unowned property or the property of others.

>>95832

So long as the borders are respected. The history shows they are not respected unless backed by violence. Ergo property comes from ability to inflict violence on trespassers or destruction on property.

Same as a wolf takes a piss on a tree to mark do-not-enter-will-bite ownership claim.

>>95834

Hence why I included ability to enforce in my post, right here:

>…and must reasonably be able to defend his claim, either through his own means or through hired security

>>95835

Yes, you a right. I just stressed the violence part in the "emborderment". As in, you don't need to "emborder" someone's wife you just privatized to yourself by virtue of superior firepower over her previous husband, you effectively became some else's owner without marking your claim nor investing labor into her. Although, one did spend energy to kill the previous owner, so he indirectly invested into his new female property by taking risk and spending energy and ammunition.

So, to sum up:

>>95779

>Is only what you produce your property?

Whatever you can keep or destroy.

>What about the air/bodies of water?

If you can keep others from using them or irreparably spoil them, they are yours.

>Can land be property?

Yes, as above.

>What is the minimum amount of labour required to homestead a plot of land?

Would depend on ratio of men contesting your claims to amount of bullets you or your buddies/mercs are ready to spend.

>Does homesteading give you the right to dictate the use of said land in perpetuity?

Nah, everyone dies eventually. Then people can watch the inheritance claim war live with popcorn.

>>95838

>s in, you don't need to "emborder" someone's wife you just privatized to yourself by virtue of superior firepower over her previous husband, you effectively became some else's owner without marking your claim nor investing labor into her.

No, but you do have to emborder her to keep other men from trying to steal away your conquest. And I would assume you invested a fair amount of labor into breeding her later that night.

>>95812

It's been the same acronym for a while. Those fags over at PERC came up with it and it works perfectly fine.

>but it doesn't even attempt to provide an adequate justification for property

<"Where are the limits of property?"

I think the definition itself is an applicable answer in its own right to this question as it sets clear limits, that is if the tautology is not met, it isn't property (or at least, it isn't private property which is the kind I'm particularly worried about).

>>95819

>I only have a bone to pick with people who say it'd be perfectly natural in ancapistan for people to claim vast swathes of land arbitrarily and expect others to respect those claims.

I didn't realize people did that. I'd assume it can't be arbitrary if they're building fences, defending it, etc. Otherwise their claim over the vast swath of land is negligible. It was only Kings/Nobles and Governments (I know, same thing) who ever claimed ownership of large plots of land without having guards or fences or something. Even ranchers back before 1874 when barbed wire fence was invented would hire cowhands to basically circle the perimeter of their property and yell at people to get off it/enforce their claim if they weren't actively using that patch of land (and clearly the hiring of labor to defend it shows it wasn't entirely arbitrary claims). Even companies quickly put land to use if they own it unless we're talking about the "private fields"/abandoned buildings that are really only enforced by the police since the companies aren't willing to shell out the money to defend them (and I don't think you'll find an AnCap or Agorist who's terribly fond of the crown's enforcement agents). Maybe I just see this as a non-issue though since I figure anyone who made a mad claim of land without enforcing it would be laughed at/shot at when they inevitably try to arbitrate their inheritance at the end of a barrel (and they would find it too expensive to enforce it without using said land for one purpose or another).

>>95832

The other portions cover a mix of "what ifs" and certain debates such as if an owner is responsible for the pollution created on their property and stuff like that. They're required even if they can be safely ignored most of the time.

>>95839

It just occurred to me that the marital rings are basically 'borders' minimized as to carry them around most of the time. So when a woman agrees to an offer to become someone else's property she voluntary emborders herself at the ring finger by a circular border provided on the spot by the property solicitor, who carries around his own fence sample in case a claim confusion would occur.

Who would have thought thinking of property could be so fun.

>>95832

>By that logic, simply homesteading infringes on the rights of any other homesteader that also wished to settle on the land.

Why would it? You are the one who is claiming emborderment is sufficient for ownership. My standard is use.

>A person's subjective valuation of pristine land might be higher than the massive costs it incurs, which means in his eyes it's profitable

>The national parks are basically plots of undeveloped land, they bring in millions in revenue every year, and would be worth billions on the open market if sold. That's not just a spook.

Those aren't spooks, they're perfectly reasonable uses for land which require intense labour to maintain.

You're not getting what I'm saying. It doesn't make sense to speak of land ownership absent productive use in a stateless society. Value is subjective and there are a huge number of uses for land, but that doesn't mean that you can just claim to own something and expect people to respect your claim. In a society where the cost of claims enforcement rests on the claimants individually or collectively (through a rights enforcement agency) a sort of homeostasis is inevitably reached where on average only productive claims are defended.

>>95867

I hope this is just banter

>>95870

Of course it is!

People are now tax cattle mostly, suffering violence if they don't pay, hence collective government property. So a man can't effectively privatize a woman as both were already marked state property at their birth certificates and citizenship (=cattle collar) inherited. A property can't own property that is not also owner by the owner. If anything, with modern divorce and alimony laws, it is a woman who gets to privatize a share of a man, so the state sends her the share of his cattle tax via alimony.

Hence it is a modern Western man offering a share of himself as living property to a woman with the rings and such. A reverse of what I originally shitposted about.

>>95870

>You are the one who is claiming emborderment is sufficient for ownership. My standard is use.

Emborderment is the prerequisite for use, since you need to separate your land from unowned land before putting it to use. The difference is largely semantic, as any form of emborderment requires labor to be performed, and most forms of productive use are a form of emborderment, but we're talking about legal theory, and that means we must go beyond practical purposes and dive straight into autismal semantics. And because emborderment/exclusion is the prerequisite for productive use, I believe it is a more fitting definition than labor.

>I hope this is just banter

What on earth do you mean? We're pro free-market here, that means we're evil right wing bigots that don't respect wahmen at all and see them as nothing more than breeding stock. Why, I bet no one here even donates to a single e-thot's patreon, that's how regressive we are here.

Question for Mutualists or Mutualism-knowers:

What is the difference between property based on use/occupation vs lLockean labor theory of property? Isn't mixing ones labor on the land putting it to use? They both seem the same to me.

>>95884

The Lockean view is that land is homesteaded and henceforth owned in perpetuity, whereas in Mutualist theory ownership depends on continuous use.

What constitutes continuous use is defined differently by different people. IMO use ends when the user permanently ceases to collect the fruits of the land, which conveniently in voluntary law systems coincides with the point in time when it stops making sense to enforce your ownership rights.

OG mutualists had a more limited view of what constitutes use, probably because they lived back when the landed aristocracy was still a thing and the Labour Theory of Value hadn't been thoroughly superseded.

>>95876

>we must go beyond practical purposes and dive straight into autismal semantics

agreed

>>95875

>Hence it is a modern Western man offering a share of himself as living property to a woman with the rings and such.

As it should be

>we're evil right wing bigots that don't respect wahmen at all and see them as nothing more than breeding stock. Why, I bet no one here even donates to a single e-thot's patreon, that's how regressive we are here

Disgraceful. I'll make sure to ask in r/feminism for permission to berate you.

How would rivers work in private property? Would a part of the river that runs through your property be the one you own or would you own the entire river?

>>96172

Honestly don't know how it would work.

Probably property owners on the banks of the river would own it as a collective.

>>96172

I'd say you own the part of the river that runs through your property. Although things get interesting when you try to decide who owns the water in the river–if you're able to claim ownership of the water, would you be in your rights to dam up the river and prevent your neighbor downstream from using it?

My preliminary answer is that kind of damming would be an act of trespass–if you own your stretch of river and the water that runs through it, logically it would follow that the guy downstream also owns the water that runs through it. Another way to put it is that he owns the river in the state that it was in when he bought the property–if someone changes the state of the river without his consent, it is in effect a form of vandalism. So damming up the river upstream would be the same as breaking into his house and spraypainting a dong on his wall.

>>95884

In locke's model, if I piss on your porch I can rob your shit; it has been "improved," and in fact a lot of folks got their shit robbed.

In mutualist use-property, you probably own everything you own now unless you live a slightly wierd life. If you die or walk away for fucking forever - or if you claim to "own" the things that OTHER people use as property, you're fucked. Better not loan people your personal shit, let alone on such a scale that large swaths of other peoples' personal shit are "your" shit in your mind, nor die if the lockean notion of your house becoming some sort of eternal shrine is important for you.

If you don't come back for the lawnmower in five years, bob, you can't gank the business they started with it. It's theirs. Should have checked in after the weekend. Same with your fucking factory; work the line or lose it to those whose lives it is.

The way it should be. Only some of this is real and/or nontoxic.

>>95805

Private property is actually SENGL

Small

Enough

(to)

Not

Get

Lynched

While your standards are practical for free civilian use once things are being divied up, the actual guiding hand that will decide what is private and public is an efficiency-exploitation gradient.

>Is allowing this land owner to control this land more efficient than not?

>Is it easier to convince people to divest his land than to maintain profitable ventures with this land owner?

>Could I be more efficient using that land than that land owner in such a way that will win support from nearby people based on long term interest?

>Could my interests coexist with the land owner's without the divestment of the property in a way that is more equitable to both parties than the risks and expenses of seizure?

>Is it more efficient or equitable to obtain the property in some other way than an act of violence, which will almost inevitably enact retaliation without near-universal support?

etc. etc., in the end a great lethargy will be produced; as a land owner's exploitation and overstep increases the possibility of unilateral expulsion or execution will increase, such that it will regulate his power.

Historically this has proven very effective as the general ethic that underlies the rise of liberty, and we can see that as awareness of the individual's agency to collectivize (in revolt or in union) increases, the power of the state decreases, short of the collective becoming the state and swallowing everything.

In an environment where these principles are well known to everyone at all times and things are being rebuilt with them in mind, they could take action much sooner into any attempt at centralizing property and prevent a true "state" from beginning at all.

>>96941

>or walk away for fucking forever

Whoever gets to decide precisely how much 'fucking forever' is will have his grandchildren decide how many thousand random people must be gassed today according to The State Plan.

>or if you claim to "own" the things that OTHER people use as property,

Same here. Unless there is some planet-wide register of properties with unique claim-codes easily painted or burned on your property and easily checked remotely, you don't just happen to know if something is someone's property, and legally at that, without much prior warning like fences and signs. And even that will not prevent challenging other people claims in any way, up to wars for property that has happened since forever.

Then what, my beautiful mutuelist friend?

>If you don't come back for the lawnmower in five years, bob, you can't gank the business they started with it. It's theirs.

Suppose I come back for MY lawnmower five years later and instead of adhering to opinions of people I don't know nor care about I decide to shoot/axe/strangle the fuckers for stealing my shit. Then what? Shall we start the Great Lawnmower War between my family clan and a mutuelist posse?

Because I'd much rather my family kept their property and inherited it for all time regardless of what aliens think or feel, I have no qualms about butchering aliens for infringing on my family property, even if it is a lawnmower (it always starts with a lawnmower and always ends in you wife and children).

Eventually either one side genocides other sides' men, enslaves and castrates their children and rapes their women - and takes the lawnmower - or the mutuelists agree to hand over the fucking lawnmower, because handing it over with fines attached is generally more preferable to a genocidal war with tribals.

So we arrive to a notion that once a property right is established it cannot be alienated from the proprietor contrary to his will so long as he lives and wishes so - IF you don't war regular property contesting wars. As it makes regular wars for taking other peoples property on made up charger less regular and destructive.

People don't just give up their shit and go, man. Never did, never will. Such is life.

>>96941

>Better not loan people your personal shit, let alone on such a scale

Congratulations, you just undermined the entire economic aspect of libertarianism, effectively turning it into a bunch of retarded leftists. Good job.

>>96969

>Congratulations! Someone asked what a left philosophy was, and the answer was leftist!

I don't think you should be throwing the word "retarded" around.

>>96963

>Suppose I come back for MY lawnmower five years later and instead of adhering to opinions of people I don't know nor care about I decide to shoot/axe/strangle the fuckers for stealing my shit. Then what? Shall we start the Great Lawnmower War between my family clan and a mutuelist posse? Because I'd much rather my family kept their property and inherited it for all time regardless of what aliens think or feel,

<Plot twist : this text was posted by an Anglo in N. America, Australia, or Scotland.

>So we arrive to a notion that once a property right is established it cannot be alienated from the proprietor contrary to his will so long as he lives and wishes

<seconds earlier…

> Unless there is some planet-wide register of properties

Hmm.

>>96971

No, i precisely meant that those mutualists who claim to not be leftists are retarded.

>>96984

>Rivers are a good example of collective, limited usufruct rights.

Not really. Rivers are as much of a collective property as fucking environment, which is to say, none. It could be called "reactive property" as it reacts and impacts the property of others, but that's only as far as it goes.

>You can own the fruits of your labour upon the river, but only insofar as the rights of the other users are maintained.

Fuck you and your commie rhetoric. You can do whatever the fuck you want and let anyone do whatever the fuck you want unless it causes damage to other's property. No rights except property rights, stick that labor up your ass.

>Another example of different principles arriving at the same conclusion.

Except he said nothing about labor. How much of a gay faggot can you be?

I enjoyed reading this thread, good stuff, thanks.

ancapistan will only fully be realized in spess where there is very little scarcity

anything on earf is just a compromises

>>95793

BASED