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]