Ben Cooper in FlickrCentral (a group I moderate) asks: "How do you feel about land rights? Here in Scotland, land is treated
quite a bit like your views on intellectual property - there is a
general right to roam over any open land, no matter who it belongs to,
as long as you do no harm."
I subscribe to the homesteading theory of property (a nuanced and
extremely libertarian-minded version of it). Merely claiming something
is yours does not grant you ownership. It is through use of the land
and actually producing value out of it is the true legitimate claim of
ownership. Note that I never said anything about comparative value of
the use, which is the argument a lot of corporations and governments
use when invoking eminent domain land-grabs.
For example, a rich guy with undeveloped property who has done nothing to it and has effectively abandoned it versus the squatter who builds a house on it. I would say that the squatter, through the manipulation of the scarce resource (land), that is the true and ethical owner. Mere possession does grant ownership or else there will not be an ethical argument against the use of force to claim ownership if possession is the only requirement.
In Ben's example, the passerby would be temporary homesteaders. They are making use of the wasted space by traversing across it and are within their rights as they are effectively the owner of the path they are walking on.
What do you think?
Suggested reading:
1. Jeffrey Tucker and Manuel Lora "Homesteading for Fun and Survival" http://mises.org/story/2106
2. Stephan Kinsella (my favorite libertarian writer) "Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, why the very idea of "ownership" implies that only libertarian principles are justifiable" http://blog.mises.org/archives/006992.asp
