Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Hey BluffThis thanks for keeping the discussion alive. ou bring up good questions and I thought a lot about my answers.

[Quote] I) Are there any other qualifications/justifications for taking adverse possession other than abandonment? [\Unquote]

The only qualifications are the 5 necessary and sufficient conditions I listed my original post on adverse possession.

As to additional justifications, there are many, but most of them are the classic pro-property justifications you have heard before I suspect.

Some unique justifications include the interest in repose, or quiet enjoyment without people trying to take your [censored] all the time. That is, we want and expect people to grow roots and invest in their land. We build houses, plow fields, build roads, etc. Adverse possession protects these people from those with stale claims or “owners” that have sat on their rights and now wish to disturb and enrich themselves at the expense of the new users/possessors.

Imagine you bought property from some guy and built a house on it. You raised a family there, built fences, kept the place up, and have been there for a long time. Now what if it turns out that the guy who sold you the land was a con man and never owned it, and 30 years later some old dude comes by and says “hey wait I own the land GTFO I’m going to live here in your house now.” Adverse possession I think is a good balance on the level of security.

I can try to flesh these out even more but perhaps it would be better if I referred you to law review articles? We can debate this if you like.

[Quote] II) Can you please define abandonment? [\Unquote]

Abandonment is the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time.

If I move into your vacation home and claim it as my own, if you protest to me, eject me, or seek a legal remedy if available (courts/ the sheriff), then you have not abandoned your property.

But after a reasonable time has expired, you have sat on your rights and abandoned your ownership of the property, and can no longer claim the right to eject me and recover your property.

[Quote] III) Is there a limit on how much such "abandoned" property one may adversely possess *and* retain? [\Unquote]

Theoretically, no

In reality, certainly yes due to the 5 conditions I mentioned previously. You can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period. I mean even a rural farmer can only plow so many acres…

Nothing prevents me from selling my new ownership interest once I have acquired the property, however. Imagine a row of houses without owners. I move into one, adversely possess it for a reasonable time, then sell it, then move on to the next house.

[Quote] IV) What is the basis for determining the time period of either abandonment or adverse possession? [\Unquote]

The time period on both abandonment and adverse possession begins with the adverse possession. So for instance I own wilderness land and have not been there for 15 years. But you move in on my land in year 15. The previous 15 years do not count, only years starting after your adverse possession attempt count. So year 20 of me never going to the property is only year 5 of abandonment/adverse possession period.

I have been relying heavily on the idea of a “reasonable” time and I guess I have to be more precise. I am thinking of a short time for objects, like fruit trees, baskets, whatever goods you can take with you. I am thinking of a much longer time for land, like multiple years. In the U.S. we have a range between 5-30 years for land depending on your state but I think in practice we have to fix a point that may or may not be a little arbitrary…like we do for voting, or driving, or whatever. The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it.

He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society.

It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we have to be a little more clear on what "wants" means in this context. I "want" no one to smoke cigarettes because I think that would make sociey "better" overall because I think they are filthy and disgusting. I also "want" no one to shoot me. There are two different kinds of "wants":

1) You want people to act a certain way but won't act to stop them if they disagree
2) You want people to act a certain way but will act to stop them if they disagree

The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[ QUOTE ]
It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[ QUOTE ]
Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. But again, they are just subjective value judgments in action.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back.

If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it.

He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES! I already agreed with it. If that's the case then his justification "I try to get it back because I want it back" is incomplete. That was the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. In fact, my entire point hinged upon that exact analysis: even if you don't believe in property as a natural right you probably recognize its value as some sort of social-norm-derrived right. Either way, the claims of the "property is theft" crowd are beaten down.

[ QUOTE ]
When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this argument isn't deep at all. You've just got something stuck in your head that you can't shake which is making you misinterpret my posts. I'm not quite sure what that is.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to use force here because I value a child's well being more than a blade of grass's well being. What's the problem?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

But why do you prefer to use force here?

You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one? I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe that all hamburgers have a natural right to be topped with cheddar cheese, so bad example.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

OK BigLaw so let's add in your last response to clarify and we get:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is short for objects/whatever goods you can take with you
-b) that time period is longer for land
-c)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-d) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time.



Alright. Notice that in #4 I didn't distinguish as you did between "theory" and "practice". The idea here is to discuss the theory, and not a results dependent analysis. The theory determines what is a right or wrong practice. Would you agree with that and my formulation of #5?

Now let me ask some additional questions:

V) What is the justification for your different time periods for portable articles and land? Is it value, which thus would mean high value portable articles should enjoy greater time protection as well?

VI) Who determines what "reasonable" is even?

VII) In #2d, where the time clock starts with adverse possession, doesn't this mean when I see anyone leave their house and drive away I can go sit in their house and start the clock, being willing of course to leave if the owner returns soon to reassert his claim?

VIII) Are violent means, as in those minimally necessary to get the job done, valid means for assertion and policing of prior ownership, whether that of the earlier owner during the reasonable period or a later squatter, when persuasion fails?

IX) Regarding #4, and the practical amount of land one can actually use, is that conditioned on how much an individual can use, or is it permissible to hire enough employees to work it and thus assert ownership?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. I was responding under the assumption that you were taking the ACist line that property rights are a natural extension of the right to self ownership. It seemed to me that Kaj was taking exception with the designation of property rights as "natural", and was arguing with you, so I assumed you had said that. I'm sorry I attributed statements to you that you didn't actually make.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said already: my own values. What makes you like blue and not red shoes?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a principle as I've already explained. It is my belief that the world is better off if people behaved as such. That's the principle I am using for my life. You may not share the same principle in yours and that is fine.

[ QUOTE ]
... and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't I pick and choose my values? Why can't I decide that I believe activity X to be so egregious that I will use force and that I won't do so for activity Y. Is your solution to the fact that life includes arbitrary choices to arbitrarily establish some notion of "rights"? How is that any better? Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a principle as I've already explained. It is my belief that the world is better off if people behaved as such. That's the principle I am using for my life. You may not share the same principle in yours and that is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, when you say you would use violence to stop someone else from abusing a child you are saying that it's not fine for some people to not share the same principles. This is the distinction you are not making in your "counterexamples" about blue and red shoes but that is essential to the concept of "rights" vs. "subjecive preferences" that you are claiming does not exist.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises, then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case. You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant. In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated that I act on a particular principle over and over in this thread (namely, I try to act how *I* would want society in general to act). However, I acknowledge my principle is subjective rather than pretend it is non-arbitrary. There is nothing inconsistent about my principle.

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated my principle in over and over in this thread. And it was not "acting impulsively as the situation arises".

[ QUOTE ]
then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can claim an action is wrong in that it violates my values. There really is nothing non-arbitrary to appeal to when one judges an action as "wrong".

[ QUOTE ]
You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I HAVE STATED MY PRINCIPLE OVER AND OVER IN THIS THREAD. AND IT WAS NOT ACTING RANDOMLY! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't. What's the point? If I were mentally ill, it would affect my "first principles" (as you describe) just as surely as my personal values. And illness from one perspective might be genius from another anyway. Again, why must you keep pretending there is some non-arbitrary basis for human action that defines our "rights" when in fact none exists?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Man BluffThis you are really putting me to work here. I think this might be the deepest elaboration I’ve ever had to make on this issue. I should print it out or something.

[Quote] V) What is the justification for your different time periods for portable articles and land? Is it value, which thus would mean high value portable articles should enjoy greater time protection as well? [\Unquote]

My intuitive justification is that land is the origin of most wealth, and has a value just in its possession (i.e. enables privacy).

Also the “lifetime” of portable articles is generally very finite. Even high price tag items like cars only run so long, whereas land is technically enduring in value. I guess you could make a case for minerals (but I consider that land anyway) or rare/historic art pieces or objects like the original Declaration of Independence.

But I’m not sure there is a coherent justification here, or that one is necessary to the theory of adverse possession. I think no distinction between portable articles and land in the theory would just modify and not disprove the doctrine of adverse possession.

[Quote] VI) Who determines what reasonable is, even? [\Unquote]

I’m not sure on a theoretical level this matters as much to the rebuttal of the “first taking = theft argument.” I think that all I need is the concession that there is some objectively reasonable time, and whether it is 5 or 50 years does not matter. This is because most if not all land and property owned today has been owned adverse to all others far longer than any plausibly objective reasonable time, no matter what the time is set at.

I think a political community can fix a time period within the range of reasonable times. The reasonable range is bounded on the one hand by a minimal amount to ensure than owners have an opportunity to object to squatters but not so long that an adverse possessor is prevented from relying on possession for investment and security.

Any fixed point will always be somewhat arbitrary as an approximation of the ideal reasonable time. This is the same with a minimum sexual consent age, voting age, retirement age, etc. What makes one minute before or after midnight on your 18th birthday less unreasonable than exactly midnight, right? That is the nature of measured time. But that does not prove that there is not some reasonable time.

We can debate what circumstances might influence the appropriate point or range.

[Quote VII) In #2d, where the time clock starts with adverse possession, doesn't this mean when I see anyone leave their house and drive away I can go sit in their house and start the clock, being willing of course to leave if the owner returns soon to reassert his claim? [\Unquote]

Yes, but any private property regime usually sanctions trespass with fines, etc. especially against “land pirates” or those who actively try to take others’ land in this way. But in principle if you were to stay in my house long enough you could gain ownership.

But think about how impractical a move this would be for you if you knew there was an owner who may or may not come back within the stipulated time period. Any improvements you make to the property, any investment you make in bringing your stuff to the property or maintaining the property could be lost at any moment. Could you live like that for 5, 10, 30 years? This move would give you little security unless you prefer a nomadic lifestyle.

In the U.S., adverse possession is mostly used to protect people with defective deeds, or people who accidentally built a fence a few feet on the other side of the property line 20 years ago.

But people in the U.S. do try to squat as a profit tool. See www.cashflowinstitute.com/freerealestate.htm for dumbasses who think they can actually profit this way.

I think you could see adverse possession also as an application of the Coase theorem, especially in the case of abandoned property.

[Quote] VIII) Are violent means, as in those minimally necessary to get the job done, valid means for assertion and policing of prior ownership, whether that of the earlier owner during the reasonable period or a later squatter, when persuasion fails? [\Unquote]

My argument for adverse possession as a moral or theoretical theory about the acquisition of property and property rights in response to the “first taking = theft” claim does not have to deal with this question, imo. One can have a right regardless of the means available to enforce it. For instance, we would all say I have a right to bodily integrity, regardless if we think that it is right for me to use force to prevent someone from harming me, or the degree of force.

However I would acknowledge that unless you are an Amish-style pacifist you would have to acknowledge that as a practical matter, some degree of force is necessary to enforce any system of property rights, even in a communist system (i.e. preventing someone from using more than they need, or interfering with others’ use).


I have not really thought about this question to deeply, but I think the answer is no. You have to actually possess the land; you can’t get your agent to do it for you vicariously.


Interesting discussion we have going here….

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane. The grey area null zone crap we can deal with in the other 1000 threads on the topic but lets say once and for all that "property rights don't exist" is a self detonating argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that someone gets upset when you ask for their wallet has nothing to do with rights. If I steal your wallet, and then you ask for it back, I am not going to willingly give it you, despite the fact that I have no reasonably property claim to it. The reason that I don't give it back is because I feel I am better off with the wallet than without it. It is a utility-based decision and not a rights-based one. And it is the same decision process I go through if you demand something that I have a more legitimate legal claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same question to you, but without the big guy stealing "your" wallet first. You just see a sleeping old lady with $100 hanging out of her pocket. Are you taking it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, but not because I believe she has a right to that $100. I wouldn't take it because I would get no pleasure out of taking $100 from an old lady. If it was somebody who I knew to be a total jerk, I might take the money.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now that you have expressed your exasperation with my failure to agree with your baseless assertions, I am in complete agreement with you.

Well done, sir.

I'll end my participation in this futile discussion with a piece of advice for you: If you can't make a convincing argument for your case, you ought not to assume that your case is rock solid but your audience is too stupid to understand. You are exhibiting the same hubris you are quick to accuse the ACists of exhibiting.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now that you have expressed your exasperation with my failure to agree with your baseless assertions, I am in complete agreement with you.

Well done, sir.

I'll end my participation in this futile discussion with a piece of advice for you: If you can't make a convincing argument for your case, you ought not to assume that your case is rock solid but your audience is too stupid to understand. You are exhibiting the same hubris you are quick to accuse the ACists of exhibiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not the one making assertions here and what do I have to do to "prove" my argument that I act according to my subjective values? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights"

[/ QUOTE ]

If "bad" != "violating someone's rights" then there's a difference. Obviously to someone who doesn't believe in rights yet considers certain things bad this is the case.

Is your argument that it's impossible to consider anything bad on a subjective level without believing a right is being violated?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

BigLaw,

This is interesting so let's continue. To recapitulate where you are now:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is the same for both objects/whatever goods you can take with you and for land
-b)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-c) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever, including the use of violent force as such is necessary to enforce property rights.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time. Also one cannot use an agent/employee to expand the limit.




More questions:

X) Regarding your answer to who determines what a reasonable time period is you said:

"I think a political community can fix a time period within the range of reasonable times"

So are you saying the definition depends on others, and if so, on a unanimity of such opinion, or a simple majority or what?

XI) You said in answer to my clock question on squatting:

"Yes, but any private property regime usually sanctions trespass with fines, etc. especially against “land pirates” or those who actively try to take others’ land in this way. But in principle if you were to stay in my house long enough you could gain ownership.
But think about how impractical a move this would be for you if you knew there was an owner who may or may not come back within the stipulated time period. Any improvements you make to the property, any investment you make in bringing your stuff to the property or maintaining the property could be lost at any moment. Could you live like that for 5, 10, 30 years? This move would give you little security unless you prefer a nomadic lifestyle."


There seems to be a conflict here between your assertion of a right to squat on land which is at the moment unoccupied, and your saying that to so squat would be trespass that would be sanctioned. Since you say the clock starts with adverse possession, i.e. no necessity of a "waiting period", how do you reconcile this so as to formulate a consistent principle? If you have a right to squat, then it can't be tresspass, unless there is a further limitation upon squatting.

XII) Regarding #4 as modified with your "no agent" caveat, doesn't this mean that you don't have a right to squat on any land when you currently have as much or more than you can actually use/work yourself? Thus you could never have an excess to sell unless you received it as a gift or bought it. Basically this question boils down to whether adverse possession of "abandoned" land can *only* be done when it is necessary to survival (if you say you might have exhausted a certain tract of land so it can't be worked enough to survive, then you would have to first dispose of it prior to finding new land to squat on).