Ownership of Land

[nanite1018]

I've concluded, after further thinking and reading, that people can own land, precisely because they bring it into productive use, and since I own my mind and body, and the land was previously unowned, i.e. not exclusively controlled by some individual or group, then I can, by bringing it into productive use, and putting the stamp of my mind, personality, and labor on it (for example, by staking it out, by farming it, etc.), I have a right to it. I've made it an extension of my self, in a manner of speaking.

So, no more problems here on my part, it makes perfect sense. There are of course technical questions of property rights, for example, ownership of water ways and airspace above my home, oil 5 km down, etc. which as far as I know have not been settled yet, but the principle that I can indeed own land is one I accept.

[2046]

I also agree with the above Lockean sentiment, and I think Murray Rothbard put it well in "For a New Liberty."

As I am not as familliar with the Objectivist theory on first-appropriation property rights, I am wondering if DavidOdden has any disagreements with that explanation.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole....1#ixzz0mWQBGdVQ

(Starts on p. 31, with the paragraph that goes:

"We have established each individual's right to self-ownership, to a property right in his own body and person. But people are not floating wraiths...

How, then, should the property titles in these objects be allocated?"

and goes through p. 37 ending with the Leon Wolowski and Émile Levasseur quote.)

[DavidOdden]

Okay, so my "claim" would only be relevant if someone else also wanted to own that hemisphere of the moon?

You don't seem to be aware of the presupposition of your question. A "claim" is a legal fact, so you have to answer the question about such a "claim" in a legal context. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there were specific procedures under the Homestead Act for claiming unowned land in the US. The idea is that when a man recognises the value of unowned land, it is proper for him to take it and use it so that it becomes his property, and the law set forth objectively articulated and reasonable criteria for what acts constitute a valid claim of ownership. Actually parking your butt on the land, putting up a fence, and using it for a period of time are good ways to demonstrate that you have in fact taken the land for your use.

The lunar government would, similarly, establish some such procedures. However, if you are speaking of a "first man on the moon" scenario where there simply is no civilization, you can put out boundary markers and hope that others will respect your claim, but you better have a fully-charged BFG 9000 in case your neighbors are not civilized. Personally, if I find that you are actually possessing and using the entire Earth-facing half of the moon, I will respect your property and I'll instead start digging on the dark side of the moon. If you just make a gratuitous claim without any evidence of actually taking possession and using, I won't necessarily respect your claim, but I still might not want to get involved in a fight with you.

[JeffS]

Law is what is necessary between two rational individuals*. In your situation, some sort of legal agreement would have to be reached. Absent reason, and thus law, the division of the mood would be by force-warfare-conquest.

I'm trying to understand the rational, objective principle(s) which should guide David's and my actions. As a rational individual, I don't believe David would initiate force against me if I refused to let him develop a piece of the moon - law or no law. Under an objective moral code, should he?

But then my question is, "What have I done to make David, a rational individual, believe he needed to get my permission?" I just put up a few stakes and signs. Should he just say, "Hell, there's no law here, therefore no property rights. I can do whatever I want." If he then proceeds to develop the moon, has he initiated force against me, and therefore I would be morally correct in defending my property? Or, would I be the one initiating force against him since there's no law and I don't actually own the property?

Edit: Oops! It takes me a long time to post. David posted his reply before I finished mine.

David - I agree with everything in your post, but I'm still looking for the underlying principles. In essence:

I will respect your property and I'll instead start digging on the dark side of the moon.

Why would you respect my property? What have I done that makes you believe it's my property?

If you just make a gratuitous claim without any evidence of actually taking possession and using, I won't necessarily respect your claim, but I still might not want to get involved in a fight with you.

I understand that you may determine it's not in your rational self-interests to get in a fight with me, but what would signify "gratuitous?" Perhaps I just like looking at the moon and thus couldn't leave any evidence of actually taking possesion and using. Would the absence of that evidence morally absolve you for developing on the land?

Edited April 29, 2010 by JeffS

[DavidOdden]

What have I done that makes you believe it's my property?

You delineated a 30 sq. mile piece of land and set about erecting buildings on that land; or digging holes. You were obviously using it.

[JeffS]

You delineated a 30 sq. mile piece of land and set about erecting buildings on that land; or digging holes. You were obviously using it.

I put up signs and stakes around it. I didn't put up any buildings or dig any holes. I like looking at the moon just the way it is.

[DavidOdden]

I put up signs and stakes around it. I didn't put up any buildings or dig any holes. I like looking at the moon just the way it is.

It's not clear to me that you really took possession of this land, in fact the only thing that I can see is that you've attempted to prevent me from taking possession of something that isn't property. I don't have to pay attention to your acts of spite. Anyhow, whether or not this is sufficient would be determined by reference to the Homestead Act of 2137.

[softwareNerd]

I put up signs and stakes around it. I didn't put up any buildings or dig any holes. I like looking at the moon just the way it is.

Huh! you're squatting on my moonscape. You see, I like looking at the moon just the way it is, from here on Earth, and that is my claim. Please remove those ugly signs and stakes ! If I withdraw my claim, then David -- being a reasonable, moral guy -- might settle nearby if he judges your claim to be reasonable.

Of course, your question was really about the principles a government would use. If there were a government, that government is establishing property rights for the first time ever, then it would be guided by the principle of use of the land. However, that's the limit to which political philosophy will take one. (Just as it will not tell you whether a kid is an adult at 15 or 18). The law has to study the concretes. It has to take into account all the current claimants and the current usages and come up with some rules to go along with those. So, the actual nitty gritty is an essential part of drawing out the rules. it is not merely a question of the size of the land. The rules may disallow you from settling around some particular moon feature, it may limit the shape of your land, it may allow different sizes for different intended uses, it may allow different sizes for different sized families, it may insist on certain easements across various types of property, and so on.

In the typical case of settlement, you would be the one telling people that the moon is great and crops grow really well, almost like Greenland, and that you have saved some prime real-estate for the first 10,000 residents on which you relinquish all claim.

Other than the Homestead act, another good historical episode to study is the conversion of "commons" to property in England of about (I think) 250 years ago.

[JeffS]

It's not clear to me that you really took possession of this land, in fact the only thing that I can see is that you've attempted to prevent me from taking possession of something that isn't property.

Why would it not be? It's of value to me. It is important to my psychological welfare, and therefore important to my life.

Your position seems to be that I need to DO something with the land other than enjoy it. To bring this back down to Earth, your position would seem to deny property rights to anyone who wanted to have some undeveloped land simply for the sake of enjoying the view. Do I have that correct? If so, is that the Objectivist position on land ownership; that it needs to be developed in order to be morally and legally protected?

I don't have to pay attention to your acts of spite. Anyhow, whether or not this is sufficient would be determined by reference to the Homestead Act of 2137.

I understand your point that "claim" is only valid within a legal framework. I'm interested in knowing what a rational, objective "Homestead Act of 2137" would look like.

The law has to study the concretes. It has to take into account all the current claimants and the current usages and come up with some rules to go along with those. So, the actual nitty gritty is an essential part of drawing out the rules. it is not merely a question of the size of the land. The rules may disallow you from settling around some particular moon feature, it may limit the shape of your land, it may allow different sizes for different intended uses, it may allow different sizes for different sized families, it may insist on certain easements across various types of property, and so on.

Well, certainly some principle(s) must guide the development of those rules, yes? The concretes are:1) the moon exists, 2) the soil is made up of certain chemicals, 3) it has craters, etc. I mean, there are certainly more concretes, but I don't know of any which would disallow one from settling around some particular feature, limit the shape, allow different sizes for different intended uses, or require certain easements. All of these sound like things a government which believed it owned the land under some eminent domain standard, and could decide where the state wants people to develop, what the state wants people to use the land for, or where the state wants people to be able to travel. What am I missing?

In the typical case of settlement, you would be the one telling people that the moon is great and crops grow really well, almost like Greenland, and that you have saved some prime real-estate for the first 10,000 residents on which you relinquish all claim.

Yet, as David rightly pointed out, I have no claim in the absence of an established government and body of laws. What you suggest here is that I get to play government and establish a body of laws which can relinquish claim on land. How would I have arrived at that position?

Edited May 1, 2010 by JeffS

[softwareNerd]

Well, certainly some principle(s) must guide the development of those rules, yes? The concretes are:1) the moon exists, 2) the soil is made up of certain chemicals, 3) it has craters, etc. I mean, there are certainly more concretes, but I don't know of any which would disallow one from settling around some particular feature, limit the shape, allow different sizes for different intended uses, or require certain easements.

The concretes are the people who want to settle there, the uses to which they intend to put the land, the technology prevalent at the time, some projections about the future, the types of easements that makes sense (based on other things like technology), the limits of current use (e.g. nobody has a right to stuff more than a certain number of feet below them, nor to the space more than a certain number of feet above them).Tens of thousands of hours have probably been spent all over the world, working out nitty-gritty concrete details in various real-life cases where people wanted to live near each other .

This does not imply that the government owns the land. Obviously, some human beings have to be the ones behind the process. This does not imply they own the land. They may decide things completely unfairly, and someone other people may decide to kill them and have his own rules. Even if they decide things completely fairly, some other people might decide to kill them and make his own rules.

Edited May 1, 2010 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

Why would it not be? It's of value to me.

I don't know that, and you haven't demonstrated by your actions that it is a value.

Your position seems to be that I need to DO something with the land other than enjoy it.

It depends on what your goal is. If you want me to believe that the piece of land is a value, you have to do something to cause me to believe it.

If so, is that the Objectivist position on land ownership; that it needs to be developed in order to be morally and legally protected?

No, because you've now switched contexts and purposes. Simply purchasing the land suffices, since that provides an objectively assessable proof of ownership.

I understand your point that "claim" is only valid within a legal framework. I'm interested in knowing what a rational, objective "Homestead Act of 2137" would look like.

Are you back on the moon now? Probably the same, generally, as the 1868 version. The entire moral foundation of claiming property pertains to "use", so the claim must be definite in extent, it must be demonstrated that it is in use, and it must be published.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I believe I could grow yuccas on the moon; they seem to grow everywhere else. Alas, other than selling them for $20 for people to put in their gardens (for plague's sake, why?!?! I don't know of any uses though I suppose one could make soap out of the roots.

[VcatoV]

I'm trying to understand the rational, objective principle(s) which should guide David's and my actions. As a rational individual, I don't believe David would initiate force against me if I refused to let him develop a piece of the moon - law or no law. Under an objective moral code, should he?

But then my question is, "What have I done to make David, a rational individual, believe he needed to get my permission?" I just put up a few stakes and signs. Should he just say, "Hell, there's no law here, therefore no property rights. I can do whatever I want." If he then proceeds to develop the moon, has he initiated force against me, and therefore I would be morally correct in defending my property? Or, would I be the one initiating force against him since there's no law and I don't actually own the property?

The principles will always remain the same. Man is by nature a rational being. There are no conflicts of interests between rational beings. The advancement of society only changes the level of force involved if a conflict does indeed arise.

[JeffS]

The concretes are the people who want to settle there, the uses to which they intend to put the land, the technology prevalent at the time, some projections about the future, the types of easements that makes sense (based on other things like technology), the limits of current use (e.g. nobody has a right to stuff more than a certain number of feet below them, nor to the space more than a certain number of feet above them).

Can you give an example of how any of these concretes would morally justify anyone preventing another individual from putting any piece of land to use that isn't currently owned or being put to use by anyone else?

I simply don't see how any of the concretes you listed should disallow one from settling around some particular feature, limit the shape, allow different sizes for different intended uses, or require certain easements. If I find a piece of property that isn't already used, or otherwise has some indication of ownership, what concrete would prevent me from, for example, owning the entire thing from core to exosphere?

This does not imply that the government owns the land. Obviously, some human beings have to be the ones behind the process. This does not imply they own the land. They may decide things completely unfairly, and someone other people may decide to kill them and have his own rules. Even if they decide things completely fairly, some other people might decide to kill them and make his own rules.

Well, what would be "unfair?" What would be "fair?" I understand some people will believe they've been treated unfairly, but is there any objective evidence to prove they've been treated unfairly? I understand irrational people will make irrational choices, but I'm interested in what objective evidence rational people would use to make a law which regulates who can own land, what land they can own, and what uses they can put the land to.

I don't know that, and you haven't demonstrated by your actions that it is a value.../...It depends on what your goal is. If you want me to believe that the piece of land is a value, you have to do something to cause me to believe it.

Signs aren't enough? What would be enough?

The entire moral foundation of claiming property pertains to "use", so the claim must be definite in extent, it must be demonstrated that it is in use, and it must be published.

Is it possible to demonstrate that land is in use when its use is the enjoyment of seeing it undeveloped?