Question About Land Rights

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

Comments

[Eric Parks]

Thanks for the links. I hope to read the articles if they are not too long. Otherwise, TL;DR (I couldn't resist).

In Rothbard's book, Ethics of Liberty, he discusses this issue and comes to the same conclusion as you do. It is a tough one. If you purchase a certain amount of land and have future uses for it, or wish to keep it unused for purposes of naturalization, does this mean that anyone can come and make use of it first without compensation?

Maybe I should read the articles, eh?

[Roberto]

I'm not sure I can be objective. I just go rid of a squatter in the upstairs apartment of my house. Having the electricity turned off during a heat
wave seems to have done the trick. I'll be damned if I'll pay for your a/c when your'e already stealing from me.

[AngelaTC]

No, I totally disagree. If I bought it, it's mine.

If the landowner is paying taxes on land then he hasn't really abandoned it. If he isn't, then the legal system will either foreclose or a squatter will pay the back taxes and end up owning it legally.

They eat haggis in Scotland, ya know.

[Georg Thomas]

I tend to agree with you, Angela, on most of the things you write - provided I understand what you suggest, and it normally isn't difficult to get you.

But what do you mean, when you write:

"They eat haggis in Scotland, ya know."

Is this an idiom, and if so, what does it mean?

At any rate, you inspired a new post.

[AngelaTC]

It means, in the very least, that haggis is an aquired taste.

Much like (if I may switch continents) vegamite.

[Anonymous Marine]

That is a rather different, Roberto. He was not squatting on your land, but rather inside your real property.

[Anonymous Marine]

The example I stated above was an ideal world. That is, a world without government.

If he did not have to pay taxes on it, what other claim does he have?

[Laura]

Without government, there would be no entity which would have the authority to grant title, no? And if that were the case, then I suppose claims to land would have to be based on some sort of common law understanding of how much in excess of what a house was directly sitting on, or being actively farmed, could be claimed.

[Anonymous Marine]

Exactly, Laura. The concept of ownership should not be dependent upon governmental decree or mere possession. Decrees can be changed and all property can change hands. What then do we base ownership on?

Thus, the homesteading theory of property rights.

[Triple Hash]

Couldn't this concept be applied to a person who owns many properties where one is dilapidated and they're being the hold-out on a new development that could improve the area?

And if one person comes to squat on the land, why not more? Eventually nobody is the real owner of the land and before long you have a Tragedy of the Commons.

###

[Georg Thomas]

For further analysis, I recommend David Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature," in particular the section which deals with "Of the Origin of Justice and Property."

Of this contribution made by David Hume, a Scotsman, it so happens, Hayek advises and refers to another book by Hume: "I would recommend ... to begin with those six pages ["...in the Appendix III to the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals," G.T.] (272-8 of Volume II of the standard edition of the Essays [Moral, Political, and Literary, G.T.] and to work backwards from them to the fuller statements in the Treatise." (Hayek, "The Legal and Political Philosophy of David Hume," in "Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics," London 1967).

[Anonymous Marine]

I might have erred in my example above by not making it explicit that the rich guy is merely claiming to own the unowned property, much like the first European settlers landed in New England and "claimed" the land. There was no transfer of ownership as the land was unowned.

The rich guy and the European settlers, do not have a legitimate claim of ownership unless they had produced value from the land.

[Laura]

I should know more about this, being very near the site of one of the first homesteads http://www.nps.gov/home/historyculture/firsthomesteader.htm) but I would think that the problem you run into in a homesteading theory of property rights--if you respect those property rights--is related to survivorship. Mr. X homesteads 40 acres, farms it, with his family. Sells some of what he raises, and uses the rest of it for his family. So what happens when he dies? His family has been intimately involved in the homesteading act. Does "title" pass to them--under common law? What if the only child doesn't want to farm (decides to go to law school or something)? Can he sell the land--which his family has been on for 20 years to someone else? Or is the land only "theirs" for as long as they are actively involved in the cultivation of it?

This is a fascinating topic, that I really need to do more reading on and thinking about.

[MikeB]

While this is a diverting theoretical discussion, eminent domain in real life is a sobering experience. It amounts to legal theft under the badge of government.

Speaking as someone who has fought seizure of property rights in Pennsylvania for two years with Houston-based Spectra Energy, backed by the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), we have turned over several rocks that the energy industry would prefer to keep quiet.

The 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution emphasizes, among other points, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The quiet secret of the energy industry in Pennsylvania and elsewhere is that "just compensation" for its lease agreements with the state government is very different from the same company's "just compensation" for private property owners. It has nothing to do with the size of state lands and everything to do with industry politics.

For example, Spectra Energy cut a very different -- and much better -- lease deal with the PA Game Commission in Bedford County than the lease agreements it typically offers to private property owners.

For those who have never been threatened with the seizure of their property rights, listen to property owners talk about the experience.

You'll find it on our website video:
http://www.spectraenergywatch.com/blog/

[AngelaTC]

An exchange of goods or services with the previous landholder.

[AngelaTC]

Selling the land to finance a different venture is producing value from it.

[AngelaTC]

I have a friend who is fighting the city of Chicago. He has a chain of electronic stores, and his most profitable location is in the city. They want to knock it down and put in something else.

He has no interest in selling, and so it starts.

[Eric Parks]

With the incredible diversity of comments on this post, it is a wonder that any law could pass that would satisfy the views of everyone. Therefore, don't pass any. ;)