orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/24/85)
> > To provide yet another fable, suppose I find some land that is obviously > unused (no structures, and no roads leading to the area) and homestead it. > In Libertaria, the land is now mine until I quit using it. In the anarchy > we have now, the government that claims to own the land will either throw > me off, or start charging rent (maybe calling it "property tax"). > <mike This is certainly a fable! Except, I believe, for parts of Alaska which are still available for homesteading, where is one to find land in this country that is not claimed by somebody? Worse yet, in this industrial society, where is one to find factories or machinery unclaimed by anybody? Certainly there are some places without roads or structures, that are owned either by the government or private individuals. Are you going to go in and try to live on this property? Let me tell you a little story. There was once a small plot of land that was unused on a certain University. So nature-minded students went in and decided to make a little "People's Park" out of the property. Plant some trees, and generally make it a pleasant place to commune. Eventually our dear friend, the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan (such a *nice* man!!)sent in helicopters and tear gas to remove students from their nice liberated Park. Unfortunately this is not a fable, this is what actually happened. This is nothing new. It is what has usually happened when people have challenged the inviolate right of property. Let's not talk about pleasant fables we can think up in our heads. It is very easy to imagine all sorts of pleasant fictions. How do Libertarians propose to bring about such a restructuring of traditional notions of property without immense struggle? How do you determine what constitutes "use" of property that thereby legitimates or negates the right to property? If I have a car hanging around that I no longer use, does that mean somebody else is free to use it? And then such use constitutes a valid claim for ownership? I am glad to see Libertarians beginning to shed an absolute defense of property. I hope discussion continues in this vein. tim sevener whuxl!orb
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/29/85)
> > > > To provide yet another fable, suppose I find some land that is obviously > > unused (no structures, and no roads leading to the area) and homestead it. ... > > This is certainly a fable! Except, I believe, for parts of Alaska which > are still available for homesteading, where is one to find land in this > country that is not claimed by somebody? a) FYI, the Homestead Act is no longer on the books (it was dumped during the Carter administration). Legally, there is absolutely no land that you may homestead in the US. **but** b) more than 40% of the land area of the US is not privately owned. It is owned by the government directly. > Worse yet, in this industrial > society, where is one to find factories or machinery unclaimed by > anybody? What?!?!? Factories and machinery can't be homesteaded! Anything that is so obviously the product of someone's labor belongs to him forever (unless, of course, he elects to trade it). > Let me tell you a little story. There was once a small plot of land > that was unused on a certain University. ... "People's Park" ... > Eventually our dear friend, the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan > (such a *nice* man!!)sent in helicopters and tear gas ... Maybe you hadn't noticed, but Reagan isn't a libertarian (he isn't even a Libertarian...). > Let's not talk about pleasant fables we can think up in our heads. Right. All Utopians off the net. Free speech has been canceled. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. College is educational. > How do > Libertarians propose to bring about such a restructuring of traditional > notions of property without immense struggle? I always thought the libertarian notion of property was quite close to the "traditional" one. > How do you determine what constitutes "use" of property that thereby > legitimates or negates the right to property? Good question, for which there is no general answer. In fact I disagree with (the implications of) the statements some libertarians have made here about it. Anyone care to discuss it seriously on net.politics.theory? > I am glad to see Libertarians beginning to shed an absolute defense of > property. I hope discussion continues in this vein. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Sorry, I go the other way, indeed I would describe myself as a "propertarian" rather than libertarian.. --JoSH