Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Libertarianism & property Message-ID: <408@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 15:48:10 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.408 Posted: Mon Feb 11 15:48:10 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 15:28:00 EST References: <375@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1281@ut-ngp.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA Lines: 48 > > > > The difference is between the land, which was not made by anyone, > >and the fruits of human labor. > > Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of > my labor. I therefore find your distinction between land and > other kinds of property to be nugatory. > There are only two ways to obtain a piece of land: from someone else who already owned it, or from the unclaimed land in a newly settled territory. In theory, most of the United States was 'bought' via treaty with the previous owners, the native Americans. I agree with your statement when it refers to this type of purchase. Take the case of present day Alaska, outside of the settled areas. There is no present owner of the land. Right now, anyone may roam unrestricted across the landscape, stop to drink from rivers, camp, etc. If you wish to homestead there, obviously you have ownership rights to whatever you bring with you, and just as obviously you have ownership rights to your cabin, and whatever else you may build with your hands. Now, how much land may you fence off and call your own? An acre? A square mile? A thousand square miles? Is it limited by the amount of fence you can build? What if you bring a hundred miles of fence with you, and tell people you want to raise caribou, who need lots of grazing room. Does this give you the right to take ownership of hundreds of square miles? The point I was trying to make in my previous article was that when formerly unclaimed land is homesteaded, the rest of society loses the right of access and use of the land that they formerly enjoyed. If there is no compensating payment made by the homesteader, what will limit a greedy, somewhat wealthy person from fencing off great chunks of land? He may use 'cattle grazing' or 'growing timber' as a rationale, but the main purpose is to grab as much land as fast as possible. This is not a hypothetical situation, it occurred many times in American history. The compensating payment to the rest of society for restricting their access to the land you claim can be considered a tax if you wish. If you make it a lump sum at the time of homesteading, and the funds are used to improve access for all to the remaining land (i.e. build roads), I personally would find it bearable. Having to compensate society for a loss I cause is one thing. Taxing what is the fruits of my own labor, and hence my life, is another, and is unbearable. Dani Eder / Boeing / ssc-vax!eder > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] > kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]