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).
Quote:
|
IX) Regarding #5, 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?
|
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….