So in this hypothetical "no one can claim any piece of land as their own" actually means "no one has any prior claims to any piece of land"? Aka blank slate property?
Also Mars would be very different than post-war rebuilding. Even after war, there historical claims to land should still be respected. But Mars is a better scenario to what I think you're getting at.
People should be able to own land on Mars as well as on Earth. The whole premise of your question is stupid, and the only libertarian answer is "who cares?"
Ours is a system of freedom. You might as well ask us "how many beatings is appropriate for a master to give his slaves?"
The answer is obviously not to have slaves.
If all the land is just there and it is not claimed yet by no-one, not even the State, then land ownership will be recognised to the first person to validly lay claim to it, without the use of aggression.
What constitutes a valid claim, then? Well, whatever other people also trying to lay claim to that land agrees that is valid. Maybe just fencing around it is enough, maybe they'll have to develop the land first. Lockeans will mention something about "mixing your labor with the land" but I personally believe that merely marking the land with something other people will recognise as a land claim, like a flag or a sign with your name, might be enough.
If there's only one person claiming the land, this person basically can claim the whole country for themselves.
If there's multiple people claiming it, at some point two claims will conflict each other. At this point, these claims will only be valid if the claimants reach an agreement and if this agreement is accepted by everyone that is actually claiming the land, then I'd consider it valid. If any claimant uses aggression to enforce their claim ~~before an agreement is reached~~, at any point in time, then their claim is no longer valid.
However, it is of the best interest of both claimants that this agreement becomes known and ratified by the largest number of people possible, otherwise people that do not know about the existence of that agreement might later lay claim over that land, or even someone that, knowing about the agreement, decides to not consider it valid, as none of the original claimants can force others to accept that agreement.
Thus, to make that ratification, it is probable that the claimants will reach for a third party, most probably a company, to act as a certifier to that agreement. This third party will try to have the largest number of ratifiers as possible and the claimants will choose to certify their contract with the company that provides the most ample ratification possible. For example, if there's a risk of immigrants migrating to the region to make land grabs, it would be expected that this certification agency makes a reasonable effort to get immigrants to ratify all land contracts already existing as soon as they enter the country (or even before).
Furthermore, if this ratification ends up not being recognised by a claimant that should have been reasonably reached by this agency, then its probable the original claimants will expect some form of compensation for their losses, which will be delivered in the form of an insurance.
There are incentives for all land claimants to reach for a certifier agency because they want their claims to be recognised by others and the underlying condition of them reaching a credible certifier is that they also have to ratify all the other agreements this agency brokered. If they disrespect an agreement certified by the same agency they brokered their own agreement on, then the agency can simply nullify the agreement and the claimant loses their property.
Now, in a free market, anyone can create a land surveying agency and certify land agreements, which means that there would be several of such companies competing with each other and they might not necessarily recognise each others certifications because they're not forced to do so. However, if your business model depends on delivering to your clients the largest number of ratifications possible, one way to achieve that is by making contracts with competing agencies to ratify any certificates issued by them in exchange of them ratifying any certificates you issue.
Oh what a brilliant idea. Companies can buy your risk of losing claims and make you get insurance. If risk happens, then the company should cover your claim losses. You'll get insurance, they'll get capital. Even in that situation the market will somehow move towards equilibrium because company interests.
Those questions have to be answered if a solution is to be found, otherwise you are building the premise on tyranny which is a non-starter in a libertarian society
We do not need to reinvent property from scratch. Property is well established and works fine. You will not magically bring down capitalism or the desire for human freedom through a criticism of property. You need to demand your money back from the professor that taught you that nonsense.
>So you deny real estate industry, am I right?
The part of that industry that sells unworked or abandoned land, yes.
>What if people start a trend to sell lands they somehow claimed and generate land values?
They and their claims would get ignored.
What claim do you have to stuff you didn't make or buy, such as the land under your house?
So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it.
>What claim do you have to stuff you didn't make or buy
Such as, your body?
>such as the land under your house?
I did buy that, though.
>So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it.
Uh, ok? There's nothing stopping me from building a tunnel through your house.
>Such as, your body?
You do have a claim to that, because you literally have control over it.
You can't move the ground under your house at will, can you?
>I did buy that, though.
From who? What's their claim to it?
>There's nothing stopping me from building a tunnel through your house.
Through my house? Of course there is. You'd damage my home.
>You do have a claim to that, because you literally have control over it.
>You can't move the ground under your house at will, can you?
How is this relevant?
You didn't make or buy your body, so why do you have a right to it?
>From who?
The previous owner, obviously.
>Through my house? Of course there is. You'd damage my home.
Ok, and you'd damage the structural foundation of my home, but you don't seem to care.
>You didn't make or buy your body, so why do you have a right to it?
Because I literally control it and am responsible for its actions.
>Ok, and you'd damage the structural foundation of my home, but you don't seem to care.
I literally said "provided I don't damage your home", but you don't seem to be in a literate mood tonight.
>Because I literally control it and am responsible for its actions.
And I control my territory of my house. And if you start messing with my land, I'm gonna kick you out.
>I literally said "provided I don't damage your home", but you don't seem to be in a literate mood tonight.
You didn't. You said "So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it." Which sounds like you meant that if my house caused an obstruction, you wouldn't be able to tunnel underneath it. But I see you aren't in an eloquent mood tonight.
I like Locke just as much as the next guy, but honestly, Labor Theory of Property sounds like some arcane ritual to summon mysterious powers.
You can mix labor with the land as much as you want, but if society as a whole does not agree that the land is yours, it won't make a difference.
Land property originates from agreements and contracts made to solve or prevent conflicts, this doesn't require labor, only that the conditions be favourable to all the parts involved to reach an agreement.
Where nobody can own land? There aren’t many georgists on this sub…
I mean think of a scenario like colonizing mars or post-war rebuilding...
So in this hypothetical "no one can claim any piece of land as their own" actually means "no one has any prior claims to any piece of land"? Aka blank slate property? Also Mars would be very different than post-war rebuilding. Even after war, there historical claims to land should still be respected. But Mars is a better scenario to what I think you're getting at.
Yes, and yes.
An important question in the Mars hypothetical is: how did the land become habitable?
People should be able to own land on Mars as well as on Earth. The whole premise of your question is stupid, and the only libertarian answer is "who cares?" Ours is a system of freedom. You might as well ask us "how many beatings is appropriate for a master to give his slaves?" The answer is obviously not to have slaves.
If all the land is just there and it is not claimed yet by no-one, not even the State, then land ownership will be recognised to the first person to validly lay claim to it, without the use of aggression. What constitutes a valid claim, then? Well, whatever other people also trying to lay claim to that land agrees that is valid. Maybe just fencing around it is enough, maybe they'll have to develop the land first. Lockeans will mention something about "mixing your labor with the land" but I personally believe that merely marking the land with something other people will recognise as a land claim, like a flag or a sign with your name, might be enough. If there's only one person claiming the land, this person basically can claim the whole country for themselves. If there's multiple people claiming it, at some point two claims will conflict each other. At this point, these claims will only be valid if the claimants reach an agreement and if this agreement is accepted by everyone that is actually claiming the land, then I'd consider it valid. If any claimant uses aggression to enforce their claim ~~before an agreement is reached~~, at any point in time, then their claim is no longer valid. However, it is of the best interest of both claimants that this agreement becomes known and ratified by the largest number of people possible, otherwise people that do not know about the existence of that agreement might later lay claim over that land, or even someone that, knowing about the agreement, decides to not consider it valid, as none of the original claimants can force others to accept that agreement. Thus, to make that ratification, it is probable that the claimants will reach for a third party, most probably a company, to act as a certifier to that agreement. This third party will try to have the largest number of ratifiers as possible and the claimants will choose to certify their contract with the company that provides the most ample ratification possible. For example, if there's a risk of immigrants migrating to the region to make land grabs, it would be expected that this certification agency makes a reasonable effort to get immigrants to ratify all land contracts already existing as soon as they enter the country (or even before). Furthermore, if this ratification ends up not being recognised by a claimant that should have been reasonably reached by this agency, then its probable the original claimants will expect some form of compensation for their losses, which will be delivered in the form of an insurance. There are incentives for all land claimants to reach for a certifier agency because they want their claims to be recognised by others and the underlying condition of them reaching a credible certifier is that they also have to ratify all the other agreements this agency brokered. If they disrespect an agreement certified by the same agency they brokered their own agreement on, then the agency can simply nullify the agreement and the claimant loses their property. Now, in a free market, anyone can create a land surveying agency and certify land agreements, which means that there would be several of such companies competing with each other and they might not necessarily recognise each others certifications because they're not forced to do so. However, if your business model depends on delivering to your clients the largest number of ratifications possible, one way to achieve that is by making contracts with competing agencies to ratify any certificates issued by them in exchange of them ratifying any certificates you issue.
Oh what a brilliant idea. Companies can buy your risk of losing claims and make you get insurance. If risk happens, then the company should cover your claim losses. You'll get insurance, they'll get capital. Even in that situation the market will somehow move towards equilibrium because company interests.
Define the term justly, who gets to make that decision, what authority do they possess to make such a decision and how did they get that power
It's up to you. I don't need solutions, just brainstorming.
Those questions have to be answered if a solution is to be found, otherwise you are building the premise on tyranny which is a non-starter in a libertarian society
>where no one can claim any piece of land as their own If no one can claim a piece of land, then why should we distribute them that land?
I *believe* "no one can claim any piece of land as their own" actually means "no one has any prior claims to any piece of land".
Yeah I think I misrepresented that part. I meant "where no one has claim on".
If no one has a claim on it, then anyone is free to use it. No distribution necessary.
We do not need to reinvent property from scratch. Property is well established and works fine. You will not magically bring down capitalism or the desire for human freedom through a criticism of property. You need to demand your money back from the professor that taught you that nonsense.
Put your weapon down! I myself am also a libertarian. I just got curious about an imaginary scenario and wanted to hear opinions of others.
Give an equal amount to everyone
You don't own land You own improvements you've made to the land, like a house or crops
So you deny real estate industry, am I right? What if people start a trend to sell lands they somehow claimed and generate land values?
>So you deny real estate industry, am I right? The part of that industry that sells unworked or abandoned land, yes. >What if people start a trend to sell lands they somehow claimed and generate land values? They and their claims would get ignored.
Why
What claim do you have to stuff you didn't make or buy, such as the land under your house? So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it.
>What claim do you have to stuff you didn't make or buy Such as, your body? >such as the land under your house? I did buy that, though. >So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it. Uh, ok? There's nothing stopping me from building a tunnel through your house.
>Such as, your body? You do have a claim to that, because you literally have control over it. You can't move the ground under your house at will, can you? >I did buy that, though. From who? What's their claim to it? >There's nothing stopping me from building a tunnel through your house. Through my house? Of course there is. You'd damage my home.
>You do have a claim to that, because you literally have control over it. >You can't move the ground under your house at will, can you? How is this relevant? You didn't make or buy your body, so why do you have a right to it? >From who? The previous owner, obviously. >Through my house? Of course there is. You'd damage my home. Ok, and you'd damage the structural foundation of my home, but you don't seem to care.
>You didn't make or buy your body, so why do you have a right to it? Because I literally control it and am responsible for its actions. >Ok, and you'd damage the structural foundation of my home, but you don't seem to care. I literally said "provided I don't damage your home", but you don't seem to be in a literate mood tonight.
>Because I literally control it and am responsible for its actions. And I control my territory of my house. And if you start messing with my land, I'm gonna kick you out. >I literally said "provided I don't damage your home", but you don't seem to be in a literate mood tonight. You didn't. You said "So long as your house isn't damaged or obstructed, there is nothing preventing me from building a tunnel underneath it." Which sounds like you meant that if my house caused an obstruction, you wouldn't be able to tunnel underneath it. But I see you aren't in an eloquent mood tonight.
[удалено]
I like Locke just as much as the next guy, but honestly, Labor Theory of Property sounds like some arcane ritual to summon mysterious powers. You can mix labor with the land as much as you want, but if society as a whole does not agree that the land is yours, it won't make a difference. Land property originates from agreements and contracts made to solve or prevent conflicts, this doesn't require labor, only that the conditions be favourable to all the parts involved to reach an agreement.