Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homesteading principle

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 3:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just a question I would like answered. Kind of came across it while writing up a debate, but it isn'treally tied into the debate, so I will ask it in the forums.

According to Rothband - "The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor."

This says that the use of labor is required to have ownership of something (that was previously unowned).

Lets say you own a pot of land (legitimately), and through no labor of your own (or anyone for that matter), a seed falls on to your property and a tree grows from it. Is that tree legally yours? Simply because it grew on your property, even though you did no labor on it? If so, is this because the nurtirents of your property provided the "labor" to create the tree?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:00:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Assuming no one owned the seed then the tree belongs to you.

This is similar to a farmer growing crops. Just replies the alien seed with the sun or the rain.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:03:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:00:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Assuming no one owned the seed then the tree belongs to you.

This is similar to a farmer growing crops. Just replies the alien seed with the sun or the rain.

Extending off of that, if a deer (which we assume has no owner, and no self-ownership, correct me if that is incorrect), wanders onto your property and eats your grass, does that make the deer your property? Since your property went into tranforming the deer (chemically alters and helps grow/sustain)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Extending off of that, if a deer (which we assume has no owner, and no self-ownership, correct me if that is incorrect), wanders onto your property and eats your grass, does that make the deer your property? Since your property went into tranforming the deer (chemically alters and helps grow/sustain)?

Yes, assuming it's not otherwise illegal to own deer.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:08:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Until the deer leaves under its own power, yes, it's yours. No one else gets to shoot it/tame it, you can ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the deer was owned by another person, however, you'd merely charge the person with any damages that the deer caused to your property and return the deer.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:15:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do not agree with the previous answer that the deer becomes yours. The ownership of the land and the ownership of the deer are separate, and being able to show an objective connection between you and a piece of land does not enable you to show a similar connection to an unowned object that appears on that land by happenstance after you have claimed it. In order to own the deer, you must tame it, capture it, or otherwise make it yours. However, you may forbid others from, for instance, shooting it while it resides on your land.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:17:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:13:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
If the deer was owned by another person, however, you'd merely charge the person with any damages that the deer caused to your property and return the deer.

You'd certainly have the option. But I don't think that would be mandatorily the only remedy under a libertarian regime. The Castle doctrine certainly seems to imply that it's a deer rancher's burden to keep his deer from wandering onto someone else's property if he doesn't want the deer shot. (And on non-property he'd still take the risk from hunters if he didn't clearly mark the deer as owned. Orange vest on the deer would probably suffice.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:17:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:13:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
If the deer was owned by another person, however, you'd merely charge the person with any damages that the deer caused to your property and return the deer.

This is true too. However, the ownership an unowned deer is not necessarily linked to the ownership of the land on which the deer presides. It is a separate entity.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:18:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:08:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Until the deer leaves under its own power, yes, it's yours. No one else gets to shoot it/tame it, you can ^_^

Why would it leaving make it no longer my property? Once something is ligitimately owned, it stays owned, does it not? If I have a dog and it gets lost, and someone else finds it, is it no longer my dog?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:19:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:18:10 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:08:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Until the deer leaves under its own power, yes, it's yours. No one else gets to shoot it/tame it, you can ^_^

Why would it leaving make it no longer my property? Once something is ligitimately owned, it stays owned, does it not?
There is such a thing as abandonment.

If I have a dog and it gets lost, and someone else finds it, is it no longer my dog?
Did you tag and collar it or otherwise mark it as yours?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:19:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:10 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:08:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Until the deer leaves under its own power, yes, it's yours. No one else gets to shoot it/tame it, you can ^_^

Why would it leaving make it no longer my property? Once something is ligitimately owned, it stays owned, does it not?
There is such a thing as abandonment.

How is abandonment defined, in regards to the homestead principle?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:21:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:15:28 PM, Grape wrote:
However, you may forbid others from, for instance, shooting it while it resides on your land.

how is that different then, from "owning" the deer as your property, if the essence of property is the ability to prevent other people from using or interfering with something without permission? your answer seems identical to ragnar's (essentially, it is until it wanders off your land again unless you make some effort to stop it/tame it/whatever)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:21:37 PM, belle wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:15:28 PM, Grape wrote:
However, you may forbid others from, for instance, shooting it while it resides on your land.

how is that different then, from "owning" the deer as your property, if the essence of property is the ability to prevent other people from using or interfering with something without permission? your answer seems identical to ragnar's (essentially, it is until it wanders off your land again unless you make some effort to stop it/tame it/whatever)

Because you can forbid people to do anything on your property except leave and take their possessions with them. That includes shooting animals. Your right to forbid them from shooting the deer is determined by your ownership of the land. You have a lot of de facto power over the deer but it isn't yours.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:26:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

Potentially yes.

How is abandonment defined, in regards to the homestead principle?
It's a complex area that will develop over time with libertarian courts. Off the top of my head: The disappearance of any sign that you ever owned it without someone else having actively destroyed such sign or the demonstrated disappearance of intent to ever again possess.

In any case, I think Grape has a point about the deer, it's sort of fuzzy thinking to call the deer property rather than a sort of "property corollary" if you will.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:27:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:26:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

Potentially yes.

So as long as it doesn't interfere with whatever you're doing with the land, I can shoot the deer.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:27:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

I would think that technically, no, however you are legally allowed sue (if that is the right word in an ancap or libertarian society) for any damages caused by said radio waves.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:29:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:27:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

I would think that technically, no, however you are legally allowed sue (if that is the right word in an ancap or libertarian society) for any damages caused by said radio waves.


So I would think technically yes. Ragner has agreed that two people can use the same physical space without claims against each other insofar as their activities do not clash.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:30:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:27:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:26:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

Potentially yes.

So as long as it doesn't interfere with whatever you're doing with the land, I can shoot the deer.

The cause of a sudden impact of deer collapse in the midst of mah vegetation is a prima facie case of something you oughtn't do on my property without asking me. For all you know I put the deer there anyway. I don't take the burden of marking my deer if my land is marked and the deer stays put after all
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:32:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:30:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The cause of a sudden impact of deer collapse in the midst of mah vegetation is a prima facie case of something you oughtn't do on my property without asking me.

But I can broadcast radio waves thru your property without asking you.

For all you know I put the deer there anyway. I don't take the burden of marking my deer if my land is marked and the deer stays put after all

Let's assume everyone knows everything about claims and intentions.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:34:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:32:20 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:30:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The cause of a sudden impact of deer collapse in the midst of mah vegetation is a prima facie case of something you oughtn't do on my property without asking me.

But I can broadcast radio waves thru your property without asking you.

Radio waves are roughly on the physical scale of breathing, which I'm already doing to your property and hence would have unclean hands in a claim.

For all you know I put the deer there anyway. I don't take the burden of marking my deer if my land is marked and the deer stays put after all

Let's assume everyone knows everything about claims and intentions
Would there even be a point to libertarianism among omniscient beings?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:34:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:32:20 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:30:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The cause of a sudden impact of deer collapse in the midst of mah vegetation is a prima facie case of something you oughtn't do on my property without asking me.

But I can broadcast radio waves thru your property without asking you.

Radio waves are roughly on the physical scale of breathing, which I'm already doing to your property and hence would have unclean hands in a claim.

But we're talking about principles. Difference of degree doesn't matter. Radio waves don't matter because they don't influence your activity. From hypothesis, killing the deer also doesn't matter because it doesn't influence your activity.

Let me be really snarky and say that the dear has just stepped over your border and is 50.0001% on your property. I shoot the deer with a silenced sniper rifle. Nanobots transform the blood particles into air before they hit the ground and the deer carcass is beemed up to my ship. Did I violate your property rights?

For all you know I put the deer there anyway. I don't take the burden of marking my deer if my land is marked and the deer stays put after all

Let's assume everyone knows everything about claims and intentions
Would there even be a point to libertarianism among omniscient beings?
Im just trying to say there's no communication barriers...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:45:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:39:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:34:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:32:20 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:30:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The cause of a sudden impact of deer collapse in the midst of mah vegetation is a prima facie case of something you oughtn't do on my property without asking me.

But I can broadcast radio waves thru your property without asking you.

Radio waves are roughly on the physical scale of breathing, which I'm already doing to your property and hence would have unclean hands in a claim.

But we're talking about principles. Difference of degree doesn't matter.
They do when I've consented to one degree of interaction by continuing to exist

Radio waves don't matter because they don't influence your activity. From hypothesis, killing the deer also doesn't matter because it doesn't influence your activity.
Doesn't it?


Let me be really snarky and say that the dear has just stepped over your border and is 50.0001% on your property. I shoot the deer with a silenced sniper rifle. Nanobots transform the blood particles into air before they hit the ground and the deer carcass is beemed up to my ship. Did I violate your property rights?
If you observed it stepping across, that's a little different than a deer that was already nomming my stuff and was still on my property after doing so. I'd say it's fair game at that point, you don't have to interact with my property, and as I said, grape has a point.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:52:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:45:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

But we're talking about principles. Difference of degree doesn't matter.
They do when I've consented to one degree of interaction by continuing to exist

So you're not talking about principles.

Radio waves don't matter because they don't influence your activity. From hypothesis, killing the deer also doesn't matter because it doesn't influence your activity.
Doesn't it?

No. If radio waves don't matter because they dont interfere with what you're doing, then killing a deer doesn't matter if it doesn't interfere with what you're doing.

Let me be really snarky and say that the dear has just stepped over your border and is 50.0001% on your property. I shoot the deer with a silenced sniper rifle. Nanobots transform the blood particles into air before they hit the ground and the deer carcass is beemed up to my ship. Did I violate your property rights?
If you observed it stepping across, that's a little different than a deer that was already nomming my stuff and was still on my property after doing so. I'd say it's fair game at that point, you don't have to interact with my property, and as I said, grape has a point.

*sigh* okay what if I didn't observe it stepping onto your property. What if I saw it on your property just derping and doing nothing, and then killed it without disturbing you in the slightest. Is that okay? More importantly, do you have any claim to stop me?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 4:52:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:26:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:21:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:20:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:18:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Are people allowed to broadcast radio waves thru your property?

Yes, and they take the risk that my building will cause signal interference if my building was there before their broadcast. ^_^

So two people can use the same physical location without interfering with one another and without having a claim against one another.

Potentially yes.

How is abandonment defined, in regards to the homestead principle?
It's a complex area that will develop over time with libertarian courts. Off the top of my head: The disappearance of any sign that you ever owned it without someone else having actively destroyed such sign or the demonstrated disappearance of intent to ever again possess.

In any case, I think Grape has a point about the deer, it's sort of fuzzy thinking to call the deer property rather than a sort of "property corollary" if you will.

"Abandoned personal property is that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person, and without the intention of reclaiming any future rights therein."

That is the current legal definition for Abandonment of property. Does that seem to suffice with the libertarian view?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 5:00:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 4:52:12 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/24/2011 4:45:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

But we're talking about principles. Difference of degree doesn't matter.
They do when I've consented to one degree of interaction by continuing to exist

So you're not talking about principles.
The clean hands doctrine isn't a principle?


Radio waves don't matter because they don't influence your activity. From hypothesis, killing the deer also doesn't matter because it doesn't influence your activity.
Doesn't it?

No. If radio waves don't matter because they dont interfere with what you're doing, then killing a deer doesn't matter if it doesn't interfere with what you're doing.
Then throwing a deer through your window must not matter either?

Let me be really snarky and say that the dear has just stepped over your border and is 50.0001% on your property. I shoot the deer with a silenced sniper rifle. Nanobots transform the blood particles into air before they hit the ground and the deer carcass is beemed up to my ship. Did I violate your property rights?
If you observed it stepping across, that's a little different than a deer that was already nomming my stuff and was still on my property after doing so. I'd say it's fair game at that point, you don't have to interact with my property, and as I said, grape has a point.

*sigh* okay what if I didn't observe it stepping onto your property. What if I saw it on your property just derping and doing nothing, and then killed it without disturbing you in the slightest. Is that okay? More importantly, do you have any claim to stop me?
I do if you damage my vegetation or I put the deer there. And frankly I don't have as high a burden to show that I put the deer there as I would if the deer wasn't on my property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 5:04:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 5:00:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The clean hands doctrine isn't a principle?

That's not on wikipedia so i can't pretend I knew what it was.

Then throwing a deer through your window must not matter either?

That would interfere with what I'm doing.

*sigh* okay what if I didn't observe it stepping onto your property. What if I saw it on your property just derping and doing nothing, and then killed it without disturbing you in the slightest. Is that okay? More importantly, do you have any claim to stop me?
I do if you damage my vegetation or I put the deer there.
Agreed 100%

And frankly I don't have as high a burden to show that I put the deer there as I would if the deer wasn't on my property.
I'm assuming away misunderstandings resulting from imperfect information.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...