Contra the "Labor Theory of Property"
The Lockean (and Rothbardian) theory of initial acquisition of property involves the necessity of mixing one's labor with an object in the external environment. Once labor has been applied to a thing, it can legitimately become one's private property. The immediate question that arises is, how much labor is necessary in order to make a thing one's own? Suppose I pick up a stone thinking of throwing it an my foe; is the stone thereby mine? But isn't the stone unchanged? With what have I mixed my labor? Or suppose that I bend down and blow some air gently with my mouth over the stone without so much as touching it. Haven't I exerted myself? Can I now claim the stone as mine by natural right? In another scenario imagine that Robinson Crusoe has decided to use the island he discovered as an amusement park, e.g., by placing some dinosaurs in it. Doesn't it seem reasonable that he be able to claim the whole island as his own even before he populates it with raptors (otherwise, how can he be certain that he will not be thwarted in his endeavors for potential competitors in the meantime?)? Not according to Rothbard:
Suppose that Crusoe had landed not on a small island but on a new and virgin continent, and that, standing on the shore, he had claimed "ownership" of the entire new continent by virtue of his own prior discovery. This assertion would be sheer empty vainglory, so long as no one else came upon the continent. For the natural fact is that his true property – his actual control over material goods – would extend only so far as his actual labor brought them into production. (Ethics of Liberty, 34)
But what is true of a continent should be true of a smaller island, as well. And in yet another example, what if I want to abandon ownership of the stone by placing it back in the state of nature? Can I do that? The labor theory of property (LTP) would seem to say no. As Rothbard writes,
it would be empty and meaningless for Crusoe to trumpet that he does not "really" own some or all of what he has produced..., for in fact the use and therefore the ownership has already been his. Crusoe, in natural fact, owns his own self and the extension of his self into the material world, neither more nor less. (34)
A second problem is, how does an addition of labor to a thing make the entire result of capital good of (n-1)th order = labor + time + capital good of nth order one's own as opposed to just the results of his labor? In order to own the capital good of (n-1)th order one must also have previously come to own the capital good of nth order, for example, a good that one simply found in nature. But how does he come to own that original good? Isn't that precisely what we are trying to figure out? The LTP is of no help, for it assumes what it sets out to demonstrate. And it is beside the point that labor infused into a good is inseparable from that good. The question of justification of ownership remains. Further, say I labor on a good that belongs to someone else, and, what's more, I invest into it much more energy than its owner had put into it. What reason is there, according to the LTP, for not considering me as the rightful owner of the good?
Given these difficulties, it seems to me that the theory of ownership should be to an extent modified. It is not the labor per se that causes a thing to become owned, but rather the thing's participation in a plan of action devised by a person. If I simply decide to use an unowned object for a particular end, it immediately become my own. In other words, if there is a connection between a material thing and my immaterial designs for it, then that connection alone is sufficient to make the object mine. Thus, picking up the stone in order to defend myself causes the stone to become mine, because it is now part of a plan that I came up with to further my well-being. Blowing air over the stone does not, but not because the amount of labor exerted is too small, but because this action is meaningless and has no purpose. The use of the stone does not enter into my actions. Yes, Crusoe can claim the whole island as his, as long as he really intends to convert all of it into an amusement park. It becomes his the moment his plan forms in his mind with the natural proviso that the plan is at least at first glance realizable. Of course, if Friday also has plans for the island, it devolves to whoever first formally establishes his ownership of the island, for such a notice is essential to orderly claims of property rights in any actual society. And just as Crusoe can formally come to own the island, so he can, upon learning of the uselessness of a property to him, also formally divest himself of or abandon it. All he has to do is notify everyone of his no longer having an interest in it.
Thus, legal ownership should follow upon praxeological control. He comes to own a hitherto unowned thing who intends to use it for an end, even before he mixes any labor with it and regardless of the amount of the actual labor he imparts into it. In other words, the necessity of using labor with capital goods is due to the law that all production requires more than one input to factor in it. And it is true that working on a thing often constitutes good evidence of using it for a purpose, whereas Crusoe's harboring a plan in his head is hidden from whoever may challenge him for the claim to a property. But it must be realized that this epistemological utility of labor is irrelevant to who ought to own any given thing.
Notice that the second problem of the LTP mentioned above is also solved, for any original good can become private property once it is incorporated into a plan of human action. One is able to get something for nothing (that is, for free) by appropriating nature-given resources under the right circumstances, exactly as our intuition demands. The concept of ownership is useful here, because it is rare that the same object can be used for several different purposes by different people at the same time. But does not our theory allow Crusoe to claim ownership of an entire continent, as long as he comes up with a plan to exploit it? I believe so, yet there is no absurdity in this. It is precisely the fact that one cannot usually have such enormous ambitions that causes continents to become owned by different people one little patch of land after another. Further, consider the following situation: in the not-so-distant future a big corporation sends a ship to Mars with the hope of "terraforming" a large part of it and thereby making it habitable by human beings (rather like in the movie Total Recall). Would it not be a perfectly just thing for the company to come to own the entire land it intends to transform from hostile to human life to supportive of it? Would it not be reasonable for it to be able to charge independent colonists who wanted to move to Mars money for the land even before it is developed, despite the fact that the amount of the land in its possession is huge? Yes, I think, on both questions. The LTP, on the other hand, would not allow the land to become owned until it is actually terraformed which might cause the company to become involved into futile disputes with competitors.
Now suppose a person has "claimed" a parcel of land by putting up a fence around it, yet he does not intend to use it for anything. According to our theory of property, that person does not actually own the land. But even if his property rights are formally recognized, this is not a problem. For now anyone can buy the land from its "owner" for no more than a penny, for even a penny would be of more use to its "owner" than the land itself. Thus, again, the imparting of a final cause to a thing is crucial for any genuine ownership of it. Unless the final cause is present, the property is worthless and may even be an economic bad.
Again, this is an outline of a theory of initial appropriation, not a theory of property transfers. If I already own a thing and give to another person the right to use it for his own purposes (e.g., renting an apartment), he does not by virtue of his controlling the object come to own it and thereby deprive me from owning it. Only when all the proper rights in the bundle of rights are transferred does ownership change hands. In other words, ownership persists even if the original plan of action that caused the object to become owned is no longer viable, as long as it still figures in some plan or another.
If the arguments above are correct, then this "praxeological" theory of property is superior to the LTP and should be used instead of it.
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (60)
Comments (60)
Grant
I agree with your basic premise that action presupposes property. I also think it presupposes some other things, like contracts, which I blogged about.
But there is still the problem that value (and thus, people's plans) can only be demonstrated with action. So no form of property appropriation prior to acting can really work.
Published: October 23, 2007 11:40 PM
Bisaal
Ownership is recognition. You own something if and only if others recognize you as the owner of that thing. This has been the way from the time immemorial and I really dont see how it can be improved upon, by Locke or Rothbard.
Published: October 24, 2007 1:54 AM
Nasikabatrachus
That theory has a lot of problems, Bisaal. For example, what if an equal number of people regard something as being the sole property of two different individuals? What if every person recognizes a completely different set of property rights? What if asian people think that they own the entire north american continent? How about if two people say that each other owns the entire planet? Or, more apropos to human history, if an army if marching on a town and they regard it as theirs, and the townspeople regard it as theirs, who owns the town?
The problem is your definition. Ownership is not recognition, it's the right to dispose of matter one owns as one wishes. The ownership as recognition idea might have functioned reasonably well when people lived in small tribes, but a more rational and supra-personal concept is needed for complex societies.
Published: October 24, 2007 4:30 AM
Maverick
Bisaal... what is the meaning of the word "others" is it two people, 10, 1000, 1 million? What if someone doesn't recognize your property? What if the government decide that they don't recognize your property like they did in the communist countries - I lived in one so I know what I talking about - they confiscate the property of millions of people overnight and they established laws before that which gives them that "right" also overnight.
No Bisaal property has nothing to do with recognition, recognition is purely arbitrary and as such it is entirely dependable on the completeness and correctness of the information concerning that subject throughout the history, and we don't have complete and correct informations about anything throughout the history, so recognition is a kind of "fuzzy logic", it isn't possible to use it as a foundation of anything. Maybe as a helper, but not as a foundation.
Published: October 24, 2007 5:55 AM
Tim B.
No matter what your intentions and actions are, property is only yours as long as you can convince others not to act upon it in a way that prevents you from completing your plan of action. If two people make claims to the same piece of property, the one who is doing what he wants with it owns it for as long as he is acting on it. If the other person manages to get control over it, he becomes the owner. If two kids are playing with a toy truck, the one who has the truck is the owner until the other one convinces him to give it up.
This definition of ownership as simply "the guy who has it owns it," regardless of his intentions or previous actions/labor, removes the qualification of "right" or "wrong" from the condition of ownership. Only actions, not conceived conditions, can be right or wrong.
What is crucial when talking about ownership is describing what "right" actions can be taken to convince someone else not to act upon things that you believe you own. An easy way to convince someone of this is to threaten them with the initiation of force if they do so. As long as the action they intend is not itself a threat of force against you, I believe it would be wrong for you to make such a threat against them.
A more moral means of convincing them is to get them to agree to some arbitrary definition of ownership, such as first verbal claim, first written claim, first intention to act, first action/labor, most recognition from others, etc. These are all equally valid and only meaningful to the extent that they can be agreed upon by both parties. Assuming that neither of you are interested in initiating force, you should be able to settle on an assignment of ownership peacefully.
Published: October 24, 2007 8:13 AM
Anthony
"Ownership is recognition. You own something if and only if others recognize you as the owner of that thing. This has been the way from the time immemorial and I really dont see how it can be improved upon, by Locke or Rothbard."
As a purely practical matter, yes. As an ethical matter, no. If someone were to say rape me because they do not 'recognize' my right of ownership over myself, I definitely may seek recourse for the violation, as a matter of justice. I will sure as hell not buy into any ethical theory that maintains that the morality of the action is contingent on something as stupid as 'recognition'...
To the main article. Nasikabatrachus has already outlined all the main problems I would see in it. I find Hoppe's reformulation of the Lockean theory far more adequate. Perhaps the article's writer should submit his theory to Hoppe for further discussion?
Published: October 24, 2007 8:54 AM
DickF
Bisaal,
You make the mistake of appealing to pure democracy which most know is dangerous concerning the violation of rights especially property rights.
Published: October 24, 2007 9:06 AM
Michael A. Clem
This theory sounds good to me, because it recognizes that mere labor doesn't grant ownership, but rather, incorporates the praxeological concept of human action. A man acting for a purpose can acquire unowned property by using it for his purpose.
What purpose? Like any subjectively valued item, for any purpose that he acts upon, because no man acts except for his own purposes, his needs and desires, to improve himself or his condition. So he could indeed own property by fencing it even if his purpose is merely as a wildlife preserve, or if he's waiting for neighboring development to occur. Naturally, once he owns it, someone else might value it more, and thus pay him more than he values it for transfer of ownership.
Also, this theory incorporates the importance of making a legal claim, which not only publicly announces the intention of appropriation, but allows the legal system to be used if someone disputes the claim. This is, perhaps, not as neat a solution as the purposeful action part, but it is pragmatic and workable. Anyone who thinks someone is making an overly large and unjust claim and can't come to reasonable terms for transfer of ownership can dispute it by taking him to court. Of course, the disputant can only justify going to court if he, too, intends to use the property in some way, and not merely out of spite or antagonism.
Published: October 24, 2007 11:42 AM
Mark
Recognizing that there is a minimum on the amount of labor that is needed to be mixed in demonstrates that we have departed from a clear standard. A theory of ownership that requires delving into "the thing's participation in a plan of action devised by a person" is delving into the mental state of an actor, and that is something for philosophers to do, not economic actors.
Why must something useful be done with an island, more than claiming it? I think you correctly recognize that, at some point, there would be competing claims. Someone else may have a profitable use for the island. For that reason something more is necessary.
Simply setting a bare minimal standard of a mental plan is not enough. For I can have a mental plan to use the whole island as a natural park for visitors (perhaps with minimal demand), whereas you may have a very profitable plan for a theme park (perhaps with high demand). Clearly the world is better off with your plan, but how can that be arranged if I properly claimed it seconds before you did? You can say that you can buy me off, but that results in a windfall that I did not earn.
The Lockean/Rothbardian theory of initial acquisition neglects to account for the externality of exclusion. By excluding the rest of society from a certain parcel of land (a limited resource), the rest of the world has to make do with less, with an associated cost.
Accounting for the cost imposed on others is necessary. Obviously, if there was no such cost, there would be no problem with one person claiming land without mixing any labor. The LTP and your "praxeological" theory implicitly recognize this, but do not go far enough in accounting for it.
Published: October 24, 2007 4:03 PM
Michael A. Clem
Mark, I think he's saying that both a purpose and action towards that purpose are necessary, thus eliminating the need to determine how much labor is necessary, not that no labor is necessary. What bothers me about "cost to others" is the idea that people are suffering because they don't have what they never had in the first place. You can't make do with less when you never had more to start with. ANY initial acquisition, even if it's done unjustly, at least brings the property into the economic realm and benefits humanity to some degree, although we obviously care about and would prefer just acquisitions.
Published: October 24, 2007 4:40 PM
Mark
Michael, despite newcomers not starting out with anything, I would point out that they are still forced to pay rent to the present landowners. To live is to occupy physical space in this world, and it's unclear why getting there first should result in a windfall.
Another way of thinking about this problem is to require scarcity rents be paid. It would be fine for anyone to lay claim to an island, and to do so by just announcing it to the world. But if the claims are competitive, it is economically efficient to allow the user who is willing to pay the highest rent to occupy the land and put it to good use. Initial acquisitions are free, but once there is no more good land for the taking, the economic rent due to scarcity rises as new entrepreneurs come up with profitable uses. Inefficient users must give way to such uses and not be rewarded with windfall profits due to natural scarcity that was obtained without their efforts.
Published: October 24, 2007 5:16 PM
Anthony
That's nice. Too bad no one owned the land to begin with, and therefore they lose nothing that they owned.
Published: October 24, 2007 6:52 PM
Nasikabatrachus
"The Lockean/Rothbardian theory of initial acquisition neglects to account for the externality of exclusion. By excluding the rest of society from a certain parcel of land (a limited resource), the rest of the world has to make do with less, with an associated cost."
Why should these externalities be taken into account? Costs are inherently subjective. Moreover, more than 99% of humanity does not give a rat's behind about any given piece of land.
"To live is to occupy physical space in this world, and it's unclear why getting there first should result in a windfall."
That's misrepresenting the argument. It's not about who gets there first, it's about who owns it, and thus who has a right to dispose of it.
"You can say that you can buy me off, but that results in a windfall that I did not earn."
What's the problem with that? If I take your premises, your suggestion for scarcity rents results in exactly that same thing: humanity as a whole profit from the reduction in these supposed externalities for doing absolutely nothing at all.
Published: October 24, 2007 7:02 PM
scott t
"the rest of the world has to make do with less"
isnt every landowner excluding every other land owner in some way?
hasnt this exclusionary policy brought about the most productive use of land?
Published: October 24, 2007 8:05 PM
Mark
"What's the problem with that? If I take your premises, your suggestion for scarcity rents results in exactly that same thing: humanity as a whole profit from the reduction in these supposed externalities for doing absolutely nothing at all."
Humanity as a whole profits yes. The fact is that scarcity introduces natural economic surplus that no one individually has earned. Yet, it exists, but who gets it? That's a question about what's fair and equitable.
Several posts on this thread have emphasized that ownership results from common recognition, where other members of society will not intrude. If everyone owned land, it's not a problem. But not everyone is a landowner, and those non-landowners must pay rent to existing landowners.
"hasnt this exclusionary policy brought about the most productive use of land?"
Not at all, once you have set your mental plan in motion and obtained the full ownership right as described in this article, you can proceed to stop using the land entirely and hold it empty. What's there to stop you? How is that an efficient use of land?
Published: October 24, 2007 8:53 PM
Michael A. Clem
Mark, you seem to overlook the simple fact that there's a market for land and its uses. Land has little value to people unless they can put it some use, even if that use is merely as a wildlife preserve. But if a more pressing need comes along, and others place a higher value on that land, for farming, say, or to find more room to house renters, then transfer of ownership will occur and the land will be put to a more productive use. Thus does the land market, like any market, tend towards more efficient use.
And what about those poor people who came later and weren't able to acquire their own land for free? Again it boils down to productive use of the land. Well before our time, there was plenty of land for all, yet only since the industrial age has productivity and personal well-being increased so dramatically. Land offers no guarantee of income for its owner--it has to be put to productive use, and that can't be done without sufficient investment, labor, entrepreneurship, salesmanship, and productive tools. Give a man some land of his own and he might eke out a bare living, but give a man the full advantages of productivity increases and division of labor and relative freedom, and he and all that he does business with can prosper, even the people who don't own land. The latecomers are still better off even if they never own land, but given a relatively free and fluid economy, they have plenty of opportunity to own land if they choose to. Land ownership is not a monopoly in any reasonable sense.
Published: October 24, 2007 10:39 PM
Nasikabatrachus
"Humanity as a whole profits yes. The fact is that scarcity introduces natural economic surplus that no one individually has earned. Yet, it exists, but who gets it? That's a question about what's fair and equitable."
By what criteria do you judge the distribution of unearned value to be "fair and equitable"? How do you differentiate between earned and unearned value? Why is it acceptable to use force to distribute this "unearned" value?
I admit I haven't put very much thought into it, but it seems to me that the notion that we all have an equal share to that which none of us have earned is a self-detonating concept.
If you would, please answer all of the questions in the second paragraph, as they're important for me to understand what you're saying.
Published: October 24, 2007 10:55 PM
Bisaal
Who owned American lands before Europeans moved in?
Various American tribes. And were their ownership recognized by Europeans?. No and why not?.
Was it because the Indians didnt care to improve the land. But Indians lived by hunting. They didnt care to improve and still indisputabily the land was theirs.
The violence lurks underneath. You cant make it go away by making theories.
Published: October 25, 2007 12:05 AM
Mark
I'll give it a shot.
By what criteria do you judge the distribution of unearned value to be "fair and equitable"?
You do point out the big question, and it's a question worth pondering -- if there is free surplus value, who really should get it? It is certainly convenient to award it to the land owner, but it's not necessary. I think it's fair to make this a value judgment by consensus. Today we reward those who obtain it first, but it could easily be collected for general use by the government (to supply defense, security, other kinds of protection) and replace other forms of less desirable taxation like the income tax.
How do you differentiate between earned and unearned value?
Clearly, no one created any land or natural resources, so I doubt anyone should be able to lay claim to their inherent value. The Lockean/Rothbardian philosophical stance is that they should be able to subject to some sort of homesteading principle. Yet, the driving force of wealth is the ingenuity of man in extracting and utilizing those raw resources for the betterment of himself and incidentally mankind. The LTP recognizes this and tries to reward it, but only when land is initially acquired. This period of time is long past.
Your question ("how") indicates you agree with the need to properly account for earned vs. unearned value. I can provide some examples either way.
Earned: You build an improvement. That improvement is wholly owned by you, whether it is an outhouse or a 100-story skyscraper. That was wholly a result of your efforts. There is no mixing of labor problem, it's all yours---no one else can lay claim to it.
Unearned: You buy an empty plot of land in the middle of nowhere on the cheap and leave the country. You come back fifty years later to see a city of skyscrapers all around you and numerous bidders for your land. You strike it rich, and meanwhile expensive land was left vacant.
Earned: You develop a technique for finding gold deposits, and buy up land from an owner who does not realize the existence of the hidden fortune.
Unearned: A tech boom causes a space crunch in Silicon Valley, propelling the demand for livable space. Rents skyrocket.
Why is it acceptable to use force to distribute this "unearned" value?
I would respond, why is it acceptable to use force to exclude non-owners from land needed to live, regardless of how much more profitably they would use it compared to you? It is no less a use of force to keep out than to keep in, where there is no where else to go and no access to free land. Land ownership requires the use of force to repel, or alternatively the payment of rent to acquiesce. After all, why does empty land have a rental value (ground rent)?
As for Michael:
...then transfer of ownership will occur...
Notice your use of the passive tense. Yes, the land market is relatively Pareto efficient, as enough owners are willing to sell for the present value of the future scarcity rent. But there are several concerns. First, some land owners are perfectly content to use their land inefficiently, because there is no need to change; they maybe have a tiny bit of property taxes to pay. They have no incentive to sell. But if they do sell they make an unearned windfall, as I pointed out above. It's efficient, but again, the unearned surplus has to go somewhere.
Land offers no guarantee of income for its owner--it has to be put to productive use...
You also miss the point that an entrepreneur does not need to be a landowner to use it efficiently. They can simply rent it from an inefficient landowner. The rent paid for an empty, nondescript piece of land is precisely the scarcity rent. If the landowner pays no scarcity rent to society, he makes the full profit without having provided any independent value.
I am not saying that the current system is grossly inefficient. Spot prices (in accord with their carrying cost) do a fairly accurate job of pricing the current demand. But they do a bad job at increasing supply, since much land is kept in inefficient use. Just look around you. But the philosophy that I have outlined above provides an alternative to LTP-derived theories of land ownership, and one that helps answer questions about why we have eminent domain, the law against perpetuities, and property taxes. If the absolute right to land ownership is buttressed with the need to continuously pay back the fair rental value, we're able to shake free from the model of "who got there first" or "who mixed in the right amount of labor to establish a philosophical property right" and allow newcomers more freedom for entrepreneurship --- benefiting themselves first, then the rest of society by the surplus value they create. If that is where wealth originates, that is what we as a society should strive to achieve the most of.
With that, I am done, but I encourage you to look deeper into Geolibertarianism to further grapple with the difficulties of dealing with land ownership.
Published: October 25, 2007 12:30 AM
Mark
Was it because the Indians didnt care to improve the land? But Indians lived by hunting. They didnt care to improve and still indisputabily the land was theirs.
The violence lurks underneath. You cant make it go away by making theories.
Bingo. I think the only theory that can possibly justify the U.S. expansion across America is an efficiency argument, that the settlers were able to more efficiently use the land. Yet the means were suspect. They forcibly took land from the Indians precisely because they did not want to pay full market value for it, but appropriated that value entirely for themselves instead of sharing the wealth. That's why when treaties for trinkets no longer worked, it was by force and war.
Published: October 25, 2007 12:39 AM
Bisaal
Rothbard uses the expression "natural fact" twice
in the short excerpt above.
What does it mean?. What is "natural fact" as opposed to a bare "fact"?
From the essay above
Of course, if Friday also has plans for the island, it devolves to whoever first formally establishes his ownership of the island, for such a notice is essential to orderly claims of property rights in any actual society.
The invocation of formality supports the recognition theory.
Re: the efficiency argument-- if a govt is able to use your property efficiently then is yor property rightfully govt's?.
Also Efficiency is a secondary thing. First we must be clear what we want to be efficient about.
Perhaps the Indians wanted efficient hunting grounds.
Published: October 25, 2007 1:03 AM
Bisaal
All things are not owned in the same manner
Consider the sequence
my toy - my house - my farm -my arm -my body -my soul- my child - my wife - my town - my country - my God.
So a theory of ownership must also distinguish between classes of ownership. Maybe an island can be owned in a way that a continent can not be.
Published: October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
Bisaal
Can something be owned communally?
Is it valid to say that America (or a part of America) was owned by a particular tribe?.
But maybe the Indians didnt use the same concept--they just lived there. So perhaps they owned things but not land.
As we have no concept of owning sky or ocean, they didnt have concept of owning land.
Published: October 25, 2007 1:27 AM
TokyoTom
Mark has it right: "The violence lurks underneath. You cant make it go away by making theories."
Efficiency of resource use builds stronger societies, more capable of stealing from others. The Indians didn't have a chance (and deadly epidemics took a heavy toll on population and effectiveness of common property resource management).
But as a factual matter, Indians actually did alot to improve the land and other resource they used, only to see these lands and resources stolen away - because the Indians didn't have the popluation and technology needed to defend them.
We remain tribal people, so theft will remain an enduring problem, especially between "tribes". States can mediate the problem, but they frequently exacerbate it - both to steal from other societies and to permit powerful insiders to steal from others (as with our parasitic defense industries today).
Theorizing to the end of creating more efficient and just societies is fine, but we can't ignore human nature nor the interstices between societies.
TT
Published: October 25, 2007 1:34 AM
Nasikabatrachus
There are two points I want to address now, Mark.
The first is that I gather from your statements that you think that value is objective and quantifiable--hence your repeated references to "surplus value".
I find this highly suspect. I find value to be neither objective nor quantifiable. I don't think it's objective because value is a description of what the individual would prefer above other things and other possibilities. This means that value is based on individual preference, and since individual preference is subjective therefore value is subjective.
Consider your example of a piece of land bought and left alone for fifty years until it is in high demand. Consider the possibility that the owner of the land is a great lover of poems, and will trade almost anything for a poem, even a terrible one. Consider the possibility that he decide to trade his piece of land for just such a poem, and consider also that not only is the poem terrible it's written on a sticky piece of toilet paper from god-knows-where. Here we have a situation wherein someone traded land for something almost no one else would value.
I don't think value is quantifiable because one cannot quantify preferences. Preferences can be projected onto objective numbers of things (i.e. I'd rather have 101 gold nuggets than 100, and only 1 gold nugget rather than 100 oranges) but these preferences are fundamentally ordinal (i.e. relative on a scale of primary, secondary, etcetera) rather than cardinal (i.e. put into a number, having a place detached from first, second, third, etcetera).
My second point concerns the use of force.
"I would respond, why is it acceptable to use force to exclude non-owners from land needed to live, regardless of how much more profitably they would use it compared to you?"
Because if you own it, you have the right to dispose of it however you wish. It's not a question of "in" or "out", it's whether you tread upon it. It doesn't matter how much more money they could rake in than I could: I'm sure there are people who, if they were able to force me to work, could make lots more money than I ever could on my own, but I still have the right to decide how my body is used.
"It is no less a use of force to keep out than to keep in, where there is no where else to go and no access to free land."
There are two ways to read this. The first way is to read this to mean that all uses of force are equally moral, and therefore what we are to judge is not the violence itself but the criteria which you put forward in the last sentence (who can rake in more money using the land). In that case, I find that completely disgusting and refuse to consider the idea that the initiation of force is not immoral.
The other way to read that is that, when there is no where else to go and no access to free land, keeping someone off of your land constitutes an initiation of force. In that case, that can't really be applied to any place on planet earth, because there's always plenty of land to use and go to. In fact, you don't even need land: it's perfectly possible to live on a boat. This notion that exclusive rights to land lead to people starving at the edges of property boundaries is a case study in taking the most extreme theoretical conclusion of something and applying it to normal life where it does not belong.
"Land ownership requires the use of force to repel, or alternatively the payment of rent to acquiesce."
And Self Ownership requires the use of force to repel rapists, or alternatively to payment in exchange for sex: but that doesn't mean that the force the victim uses to repel the attacker is morally equivalent to the force the attacker uses to coerce the victim. More importantly for your argument, this doesn't mean that all sexual intercourse is going to be either rape (your proposed surplus value and scarcity taxes) or prostitution (access in exchange for rents): however, your argument in order to be taken seriously virtually requires this to be the case. Just like people are going to have sex that isn't conditional on monetary payment, people are going to let each other onto their land for nothing at all.
Maybe it's possible that someday, someone somewhere will not be allowed to stand anywhere on the planet earth. Until then, "Georgism" or Geolibertarianism is in my eyes a frivolity based on an absurd and virtually impossible situation, not to mention one which can be remedied by giving someone ownership of a small piece of land or maybe an apartment in a tower.
Published: October 25, 2007 2:27 AM
Nasikabatrachus
"All things are not owned in the same manner
Consider the sequence
my toy - my house - my farm -my arm -my body -my soul- my child - my wife - my town - my country - my God.
So a theory of ownership must also distinguish between classes of ownership. Maybe an island can be owned in a way that a continent can not be."
Well, you're right that you own your body differently from external objects: but this is because the body, being connected to the will which is inalienable (i.e. can be given to others), is therefore inalienable as well, while external objects are alienable.
But the rest of those things either a) are an collection of external objects b) not possible for you to own or c) concepts, which cannot be owned.
a) my toy-my house-my farm
b) my child-my wife-my town (unless you've bought the town, you just live there, on one property among many)
c) my country-my god
It seems to me that no different classes of ownership are needed. If you pave a parking lot, you own it; if you pave a continent or an island, you own what you've paved. The rest is just confusing the possesive pronoun "my" with a state of ownership.
Published: October 25, 2007 2:43 AM
Bisaal
Indeed thats the point I was trying to make--
the theories of ownership move too quickly from
statements--This entity is mine --to statements--
I own this entity.
Now "this body is mine" is meaningful statement but then you cant jump to "I own this (or mine) body".
This statement I submit is not meaningful English.
What is the crux of ownership?.
Is it
"Because if you own it, you have the right to dispose of it however you wish."
That I submit is false. What you have the right
is always defined by the Community that recognizes the said rights. Even the God-given rights are
only valid in the Community that accepts that God.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:00 AM
Bisaal
Didnt the concept of Property arose in context with the Law of Wills?. ie the property being whatever that could be willed.
Now as one'body cant be willed thus one's body is not a property and it makes no sense to say I own my body.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:18 AM
Nasikabatrachus
The problem is, communities don't exist. Only individuals exist: the term community is simply a conceptual tag, a convenient way to refer to the people who eat, sleep, and work in an arbitrarily defined area.
Therefore the recognition theory of rights is contradictory because it is based on arbitrary delineations.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:29 AM
Nasikabatrachus
"Now as one's body cant be willed thus one's body is not a property and it makes no sense to say I own my body."
It doesn't matter what context it originated in, it matters whether it's logically valid or not. Needless to say I don't have the philosophical skill or patience to prove self-ownership in a comment thread, but I think Aristotle had it right when he said that (to paraphrase) if an ethical system (like the recognition theory, or the idea that one doesn't own one's body) can be used to justify murder and rape, you've probably made a mistake somewhere along the line and need to check your premises.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:34 AM
Bisaal
In (natural) fact, all our rights are hedged. We dont have right to dispose of any entity however you wish, be it our little finger.
I dont see how denying self-ownership and claiming recognition theory leads to justifying rape and murder. These two actions being not recognized as rights anywhere.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:48 AM
Nasikabatrachus
"In (natural) fact, all our rights are hedged. We dont have right to dispose of any entity however you wish, be it our little finger."
Well next time you're attacked I hope you live consistently with the idea that you don't have the right to defend yourself. You'll realize very quickly what a terrible idea it is.
"I dont see how denying self-ownership and claiming recognition theory leads to justifying rape and murder. These two actions being not recognized as rights anywhere."
Well, if by your reckoning rights are only what the "community" recognizes, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the right to murder and rape may be recognized by some communities. This has been the case throughout history: for instance, the Aztec empire regularly murdered captured warriors in the name of their sun god, and in the US for a very long time it was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife. I could probably fill a book with counterexamples to your claim.
Published: October 25, 2007 4:22 AM
Anthony
"Until then, "Georgism" or Geolibertarianism is in my eyes a frivolity based on an absurd and virtually impossible situation, not to mention one which can be remedied by giving someone ownership of a small piece of land or maybe an apartment in a tower"
I agree. I cannot think of a more stupid reason to justify a tax or government than Georgism.
Bisaal, would you say then that if, hypothetically, some community did not recognize self-ownership and tolerated rape or murder, that it then becomes one's 'right' to perpetrate these acts? If so, forgive me for considering the statement ridiculous, and worthy of dismissal.
Published: October 25, 2007 4:55 AM
Bisaal
I am really not qualified --eg I dont know what Aquinas or Kant wrote about it but I find the statement
"I own my body" more absurd than
"I own my slave".
It is an absurd claim for an ensouled body (or an embodied soul) to make.
Published: October 25, 2007 5:28 AM
Anthony
What is absurd about it?
Published: October 25, 2007 6:17 AM
Bisaal
Does anybody goes around saying I own my body?
I mean is it possible to say this aloud?>
Published: October 25, 2007 7:01 AM
Anthony
Never been in an abortion debate, have you? Or one on drugs for that matter, even. That is irrelevant though, as it is a philosophical concept. Whether people tend to refer to themselves as self-owners or not is beside the point.
Published: October 25, 2007 8:26 AM
Michael A. Clem
You also miss the point that an entrepreneur does not need to be a landowner to use it efficiently. They can simply rent it from an inefficient landowner. The rent paid for an empty, nondescript piece of land is precisely the scarcity rent. If the landowner pays no scarcity rent to society, he makes the full profit without having provided any independent value.
I didn't miss this point at all. I already mentioned how non-owners benefit by working with the owner.
But the rent an owner can command for the land varies with what he brings to the table. Unimproved land will bring lower rents because the renter will have to do more to use the land, than if the land had improvements and only needed minimal modifications.
Furthermore, I don't believe landowners can really do nothing. Ownership is a responsibility, and the owner needs to consider maintenance, security, water run-off, forest fires, wild animals, squatters, and other issues that may come up, depending upon the character of the land and neighboring land. An owner is still liable for problems that his land causes, even if he's doing nothing with it. Even if he contracts with others to take care of his land for him, that's still "labor" as in managing the land. Poorly maintained land could still lose value, even if a city developed around the land. And waiting 50 years is a large investment in the future, putting off present possible productive uses of the land for potential future productive use of the land. Who would want to wait till they're 70 or so to realize the value of the land? You claim there's no reason to make the most efficient use of a land, but in fact, there's plenty of reasons.
A big part of the problem with our current land market is government restrictions, government ownership (especially in Western U.S) of land, zoning laws, property taxes, etc. that skew the land market. That's what's causing a lot of the inefficiencies you see today.
Published: October 25, 2007 9:32 AM
Michael A. Clem
"Self-ownership" is simply a convenient way to describe the inalienability of will, that you control your own body. It is precisely because your will is inalienable that self-ownership is NOT the same thing as, say, owning a car or television, which are easily "alienable" from you. You "own" your body because you control it. If you think you don't, then who does? Who makes your arms and legs move?
Published: October 25, 2007 9:36 AM
Bisaal
But from a obvious assertion "I control my body"
how does one proceed to "I own my body".
I mean why this insistence on the label "own".
This seems artificial in English language (also in my native language).
Published: October 26, 2007 5:32 AM
TLWP Sam
There may be a Coarsian-irony in the times (perhaps even nowadays in certain countries) when women were the property of men. It may seem cruel yet if an owned woman was highly susceptible to rape and murder then being property in ye olde times may in fact bestowed great protection for women. (Or is that a voluntary deal between men and women in ye olde times, perhaps?)
Published: October 26, 2007 5:59 AM
Anthony
"But from a obvious assertion "I control my body"
how does one proceed to "I own my body".
I mean why this insistence on the label "own"."
For the simple reason that if I merely assert control, it means anyone may come along and enslave me, and I would have no complaint against them. Own (simply being _rightful_ control), on the other hand, suggests that any violation of the rights over myself must be prohibited and should they occur, must be either punished or made good for.
Published: October 26, 2007 7:35 AM
Peter
Who owned American lands before Europeans moved in?
Various American tribes.
Various American tribes owned some of the land; by no means all of it.
And were their ownership recognized by Europeans?. No and why not?
Actually, if you exclude government entities, the answer is "yes". According to Rothbard, a bit too much: land was even "recognized" as belonging to the "Indians" that really didn't...
Published: October 26, 2007 9:35 AM
Peter
Clearly, no one created any land or natural resources, so I doubt anyone should be able to lay claim to their inherent value.
But that's the only reason anyone would ever bring them into use. If you know of some unowned thing (land, whatever) and you know of some way to put it to use that will serve your interests, you might bring it into use because that creates value for you. Take that value away and there's no reason for you to act. Same applies to everything: anything you do is creating "free surplus value" - that's why you do it!
Published: October 26, 2007 9:38 AM
Michael A. Clem
"Inherent value" smacks of objective valuation. It may be true that some resources are more useful for certain purposes than others, petroleum is more useful for running cars on than water, for example, but valuation remains subjective--people place value on petroleum because of its usefulness in running cars. If someone came up with a more efficient car that ran on water, then the value of water would increase and the value of petroluem would decrease, regardless of any "inherent value" of water and petroluem.
Published: October 26, 2007 10:50 AM
Faré
I hereby claim property of the entire heretofore unclaimed and unsettled universe, that I intend to turn into a gigantic reeducation camp for the humor-impaired through the use of physical and metaphysical forces in the universe.
If you discover or settle an island, a planet, a star -- sorry, it's already mine, part of my plan.
What do I have to back my claim? The invincible righteousness of being vindicated by your theory, my being the first to have made that claim on your blog.
Now bow to my extraordinary wealth and power. And don't you dare extract any "natural resource" from this planet or universe that wasn't previously extracted before, because it is mine, all mine!
Published: October 26, 2007 10:54 PM
BeGreener
"If someone came up with a more efficient car that ran on water, then the value of water would increase and the value of petroluem would decrease, regardless of any "inherent value" of water and petroluem."
Only if water were scarce.
Published: October 27, 2007 2:32 PM
Bisaal
So "ownership" is defined as "rightful control".
But this presupposes that "rights" be defined first.
And then what about the Rothbardian project of deriving morality from the axiom of self-ownership?
Published: October 29, 2007 12:03 AM
Michael A. Clem
I hereby claim property of the entire heretofore unclaimed and unsettled universe, that I intend to turn into a gigantic reeducation camp for the humor-impaired through the use of physical and metaphysical forces in the universe.
And what actions have you taken to turn the rest of the universe into a re-education camp? Besides post to this blog? Do you at least have a spaceship? No? Sorry, I don't recognize your claim as valid. Take me to court if you want.
Published: October 29, 2007 11:45 AM
Michael A. Clem
Only if water were scarce.
Water IS scarce, economically speaking, in that it is finite. The fact that water is relatively more abundant than petroluem doesn't change its scarcity.
Published: October 29, 2007 11:51 AM
Anthony
"So "ownership" is defined as "rightful control".
But this presupposes that "rights" be defined first.
And then what about the Rothbardian project of deriving morality from the axiom of self-ownership?"
Here is an essay by Kinsella that I think explains the entire concept well:
http://mises.org/daily/2291
Published: October 29, 2007 12:11 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Interesting. But it has some problems.
"Given these difficulties, it seems to me that the theory of ownership should be to an extent modified. It is not the labor per se that causes a thing to become owned, but rather the thing's participation in a plan of action devised by a person."
Okay, he's onto something--in criticizing labor as the source of ownership. He is not clear about exactly why, though, but still. I've critized the idea that "labor" or "creation" is the source of ownership in a few places-- Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Scarcity, Labor-ownership, Metaphors, and Lockean Homesteading; Against Intellectual Property for example.
"If I simply decide to use an unowned object for a particular end, it immediately become my own. In other words, if there is a connection between a material thing and my immaterial designs for it, then that connection alone is sufficient to make the object mine."
Almost. What he seems to be missing is that the connection has to be intersubjectively ascertainable--i.e,. visible; i.e., it has to be a type of embordering, the establishing-of-a-border. See my Defending Argumentation Ethics, esp. the section "Objective Links: First Use, Verbal Claims, and the Prior-Later Distinction," and the links in this piece to various writings by Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this issue.
"Thus, picking up the stone in order to defend myself causes the stone to become mine, because it is now part of a plan that I came up with to further my well-being. Blowing air over the stone does not, but not because the amount of labor exerted is too small, but because this action is meaningless and has no purpose. The use of the stone does not enter into my actions. Yes, Crusoe can claim the whole island as his, as long as he really intends to convert all of it into an amusement park. It becomes his the moment his plan forms in his mind with the natural proviso that the plan is at least at first glance realizable."
Not quite. Merely being part of a plan in one's mind is not enough. Ownership is the assignment of the exclusive right to control to a scarce resource. The purpose is to permit conflict-free usage of resources. This is one reason why ownership by decree is not sufficient--any number of people could claim something by decree, and there is no objective way to decide as between these claimants. The same is true of people forming plans in their minds. More is needed: some embordering action.
"Of course, if Friday also has plans for the island, it devolves to whoever first formally establishes his ownership of the island, for such a notice is essential to orderly claims of property rights in any actual society."
I think he's getting it backwards here. He's thinking that notice is just the way that you formally establish your internal claim. I think that's not right. It is instead the notice that is itself the claiming.
"Thus, legal ownership should follow upon praxeological control."
Yes, but not because one has a claim as soon as you think of a way to use something, and then make this formal with some kind of notice. All you need to to is emborder--use, mix labor with, imprint one's personality on--the thing. That necessarily is including it in some plan, and notifying at the same time. Further, by this author's definition, you could (a) think of a way to use something, then (b) "formally notify" people *without even using the thing*. But this would not be even praxeological control. I could post on my blog tomorrow, "I have thought of a great way to use Mars--I hereby claim it, be on notice." By his framework, this is enough, even though it is NOT "praxeological control."
"And it is true that working on a thing often constitutes good evidence of using it for a purpose, whereas Crusoe's harboring a plan in his head is hidden from whoever may challenge him for the claim to a property. But it must be realized that this epistemological utility of labor is irrelevant to who ought to own any given thing."
I disagree. Working the thing is the homesteading. Not the "mental planning."
"Now suppose a person has "claimed" a parcel of land by putting up a fence around it, yet he does not intend to use it for anything. According to our theory of property, that person does not actually own the land. But even if his property rights are formally recognized, this is not a problem. For now anyone can buy the land from its "owner" for no more than a penny, for even a penny would be of more use to its "owner" than the land itself."
I think this is incredibly naive. If the land is worth $1 million to the buyer, I won't sell it to him for just a penny, even if it has no "mental plan" value for me!
Published: November 3, 2007 11:01 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Anthony: "So "ownership" is defined as "rightful control". But this presupposes that "rights" be defined first. And then what about the Rothbardian project of deriving morality from the axiom of self-ownership?"
Me: Well, not exactly. Let's not confuse rights with what is right. On the one hand, it is right to respect rights because one has an obligation to do so. But on the other, rights are a form of moral claim (to the aforementioned obligation) and they do not exhaust what is right to do.
Also, I reject the notion that self-ownership is an axiom. It is true, but it is not an axiom.
Published: November 3, 2007 11:26 PM
Dmitry Chernikov
1. Why does establishing a border over a piece of land cause you to come to own that piece of land?
2. What if several people try to emborder the same territory at the same time? How are their claims to be adjudicated?
3. The North American continent is naturally embordered by oceans. Can't I claim that I own the entire continent by wetting my hand in their waters?
4. Suppose that instead of making an arrowhead, I find a stone already shaped like an arrowhead (or even a whole arrow lost by someone) in nature. Can't I appropriate it rightfully even without laboring on it? There is really no connection between the form or even the former of a thing and who should own it. But there is a definite connection between the purpose of a thing and claims of ownership of it. Even going beyond initial appropriation, on the free market ownership of a resource will gravitate toward whoever can use it most profitably. Or must I continuously clutch the arrowhead in my hand, thereby "establishing a border" over the item, the "fence" being the palm and fingers of my hand? If I were to let go of the arrowhead, would it cease to be mine?
5. If embordering a land is how property rights are established, then go on and do that. What's the big deal?
1. Whoever propounds the decree first is the owner. Suppose you find a seemingly unowned lot full of junk. Ah, you say, a great place for me and my friends to play ball. You clean the place out, mixing your labor with it, and boom, it's yours. Now suppose instead the lot was in pristine condition. Can you appropriate it without mixing any labor with it? Why not?
2. Ownership is a conceptual category. It takes general recognition of the validity of a procedure of claiming ownership for any such procedure to work. Property is about the meaning that people attach to the connection between you and the object you own. Putting up a fence around something will work to establish ownership only if people believe that it is a valid means to it. And they may or may not.
3. If embordering means simply specifying the limits of your property for all to see, then sure, it is necessary to do it. But that can fall under my formalities for establishing ownership.
Why would you want to do something like that?
Congratulations, you now own Mars. And no, this is not a reductio; I'll be happy if someone can make use of Mars. Again, the purpose has to be real and attainable. I allow that you may indeed have to demonstrate your intentions by working on the land. Now you may object as follows: suppose the use to which I want to put Mars is extracting rent from the colonists who must henceforth treat me as ruler of Mars. But that's not really a use of the planet or resources on it as such. I see no reason why my theory is inconsistent with a court's declaring your "rulership" illegitimate.
Why is working the thing homesteading, unless merely as evidence of previous planning?
We have a recent example of a rush to homestead domain names during the beginning of the Internet. Someone who registered microsoft.com before Microsoft did could earn millions trying to sell the domain name back to Microsoft. Such people were called "cybersquatters." Yet the whole thing was apparently resolved even without lawsuits.
Published: November 4, 2007 12:48 PM
BeGreener
Michael Clem wrote:
"Water IS scarce, economically speaking, in that it is finite. The fact that water is relatively more abundant than petroluem doesn't change its scarcity."
If it were scarce as you say (economically speaking) would not a scarcity rent attach to it?
Published: November 4, 2007 1:55 PM
scineram
Have you never paid a water bill?
Published: November 4, 2007 2:11 PM
Anthony
I thought water's scarcity was common knowledge?
Published: November 4, 2007 6:37 PM
BeGreener
scineram wrote:
"Have you never paid a water bill?'
BG reponds:
Water delivered to your house is a service that involves labor.
Anthony wrote:
"I thought water's scarcity was common knowledge?"
BG responds:
It is finite but not necessarily scarce. If it were scarce (in an economic sense) it would have an economic rent attached to it. There are plenty of natural springs in my state were one can freely access the water.
Published: November 4, 2007 8:47 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Dmitry:
B/c it establishes a natural and objective connection with the land. It's a proxy for or type of "use" of the land. The first-use of the land gives you a connection to the land that gives you a better claim than any latecomer. Any latecomer would have to claim a right to it based on his use of it too, but since this use is later, and since he has to admit the prior-later distinction's relevance (after all he does not want yet a later latecomer to take it from him), he admits his claim is inferior to the first user's claim.
Property rights apply to scarce (rivalrous) resources--those that have precisely the characteristic that use by one person excludes another's use. Therefore embordering, as a sign or manifestation of possession/use, cannot conflict. For the same reason that you and I cannot both use a given resource in the same way at the same time (if we could, it would not be a rivalrous/scarce resource, and not subject to ownership rights).See the discussion of Rothbard's "relevant technological unit" in the comments to this thread. The connection is first use--using something transforms it, makes the extent of use visible (establishes borders or boundaries). Use is naturally limited in scope. You don't own the entire (virgin) continent by stepping on it, since you are not using it all.Sure, as long as you reduce it to your control (possession) in some way that makes your control of it manifest (intersubjectively ascertainable).Sure. Coase is okay in small doses. But only in small doses.It depends; abandonment is possible. Ownerhsip is distinct from mere possession, and there is an intentional aspect to it. So when the intention to not own is clear, it's abandoned. But once you appropriate it, it's now yours, even without continual possession; to maintain the opposite would be to obliterate the distinction between possession and ownership, it would be to collapse the two. But anyone disputing or claiming the right to control a resource (ownership) is presupposing a distinction.I go into abandonment in my A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer. Also, I think, in my How We Come To Own Ourselves piece; as well as one or two others on "inalienability." I think you need to establish intersubjectively ascertainable borders somehow. The entire purpose of property rights is to permit conflict-free use of a resource; unless the borders are objecively visible this cannot be done b/c non-owners can't know what borders not to violate. I think of it as a relationship. Maybe, but have you ever noticed, even animals like dogs know the difference between mine and yours. I didn't konw it was "about" anything. What is it, a novel? Sure, and rights are only "useful" if and to the extent people by and large voluntarily abide by them. This seems to be but a truism. I think it is, unwittingly. THen your view is starting to collapse into mine. Because any number of people can have mental plans about things, just as any number can verbally decree that they own it. The institution of property works because people respect the natural borders that people do and have established already, by natural use of the relevant technological unit. You want to reverse this, in a sense--you want people to decree, mentally, borders, and have others respect it (for some reason), and *therefore* "real" or "proprety" borders arise. The way it works in my view is that property boundaries correspond to natural, or real, boundaries related to actual use of the thing; people recognize this natural border and that makes it property.
As to why it's working it that matters, and not "thinking about it" (incorporating it into one's plans, mentally, internally)--look, any time there is a dispute, it's about contesting *uses* of the thing. So naturally, if these people want to settle the dispute peacefully, following some kind of general rule that can be regarded as just, and to allow for peaceful, conflict-free use of resources, the only rule is to try to find a "tie breaker", a way of deciding who gets it; and this rule cannot be arbitrary, meaning no verbal decrees, in fact it has to be some kind of demonstrable, natural connection between the superior claimant and the land--in fact, a connection related to the thing claimed: the thing claimed is the right to use it; so of course, the ocnnection will be related to *use of* it. This is exactly why first use is the best connection to the thing. But first use is the use, not the mental planning.
Published: November 5, 2007 4:23 PM
Dmitry Chernikov
You don't just start to move dirt into random piles on the land you want to own; you must have a goal in mind, some plan which you think will profit you. In the example of a lot, you write that "you need to establish intersubjectively ascertainable borders somehow." Nothing could be simpler, just put up a big official-looking sign near the lot which says: "This lot now belongs to me and my ball-playing buddies." Shouldn't that be enough? Whence laboring on the lot?
In other words, there is a difference between embordering and using. You can emborder with a fence yet not use; or you can use yet not emborder, e.g., in such a way that it is not clear to other people that you have mixed labor with the land. Another example of the latter, besides the lot, might be a private park. It looks wild, but in fact you may have spent a considerable amount of money making the park desirable to customers. So, in your view, which is essential: embordering, using, or both?
Why not then combine our theories and say that a mental plan is essential, and, moreover, if you can somehow prove that you had this plan without working on the land, prior to anybody else's conceiving a rival plan, then the land is yours. For example, in the case of terraforming Mars you might go on TV and announce your plans and tell everybody to get out of your way while you are working on the entire planet. But I agree that in some cases actual work on the land may be required as evidence of previous planning. Still, using in itself has no value: if you develop the land and find out that you will suffer losses, then it may be in your interest to abandon it, despite the fact that your labor may appear to have given ownership to you. So, you would have to post another big official-looking sign which says: "This land is now unowned." This again indicates that mixing labor is just a way of letting people know of your intentions and valuations, not some magical rite which necessarily confers ownership.
Mises, too: Human Action, p. 683ff, starting with "Private property is a human device."
Published: November 5, 2007 5:17 PM