Property rights questions

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


Care to elaborate? Most mutualists I'm aware of are 100% sold on homesteading, they just don't think that you continue to 'own' the land after you stop personally using it.
There is some uncertainty, of course, as to what specific things (ie, how much work) would constitute homesteading, but this in no way settles the 'controversial' issue of whether or not land is something that can be rented (fwiw, I don't think this question can be answered by an appeal to homesteading, since the principles of homesteading just state the conditions by which one would come to own something originally, not the conditions by which they are considered abandoned. I think a theory of rights/ownership, or lack thereof, is needed to answer the land question).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I can understand making a claim to something you work on, as long as you continue to work on it. As for rent, if you believe in ownership only in use then renting something certainly is not using it.

[ QUOTE ]
umm, what? Are you claiming that everyone who believes in rights has a Platonic or theological worldview? Because this is clearly false (for instance, an Aristotelian might believe in rights yet might not be religious nor Platonic; or, a rule utilitarian might believe in their necessity as a practical matter). Beleiving in rights is not beleiving in some weird metaphyscial thing necessarily, it has more to do with believing in the existence of moral legitimacy. And most people, whatever their religious beliefs, believe that some actions are not morally legitimate. If this is the case, then it is not a far cry to beleive that it is legitimate to use force in some cases (to protect what you have a 'right' to) and not in others.

[/ QUOTE ]

When libertarians talk about rights they mean "natural" rights. I am referring to rights in this sense, which to me means immutable. I don't think there is any such thing.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I can understand making a claim to something you work on, as long as you continue to work on it. As for rent, if you believe in ownership only in use then renting something certainly is not using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is what I was getting at--the issue isn't homesteading per se (I think most anarchists believe you can make a claim to stuff you start working on), but rather whether or not you can continue to own stuff you're not currently 'using'.

[ QUOTE ]
When libertarians talk about rights they mean "natural" rights. I am referring to rights in this sense, which to me means immutable. I don't think there is any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think when most libertarians use the word 'natural', it is there to differentiate from 'legal' rights. I also tend to think there is only one such right--the right of self-ownership--and that it is immutable (not in the Platonic sense, but the sense that the truth or falsity of the right isn't subject to the State, society, etc); so we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a plot a land that I rightfully purchased from the previous owner who was the legal owner of said property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can do whatever the hell you want with it. But the legal owner of the territory of the United States is the people of the United States. If they sell you their territory (cede it to you), they have no jurisdiction over it any further.

Just like the French people have no jurisdiction over Louisiana after they sold it, nor do the Russians have any jurisdiction over Alaska after they sold it to the people of the United States.

But if you're just talking about the rights to use the territory which still falls under the jurisdiction of others, your "rights" are dependent on the laws of the territory which is owned by others. Just like your rights as a tenant in an apartment are dependent on rules laid out by the owners of the apartment complex.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[
Just like the French people have no jurisdiction over Louisiana after they sold it, nor do the Russians have any jurisdiction over Alaska after they sold it to the people of the United States.



[/ QUOTE ]

As I discuss in the other thread, this still isnt true, which is why I dont accept your definition of ownership. If France or Russia can succesfully assert that the sale was defective under their laws and invalidate the sale, you have only had an "illusion of ownership" (under your definition) because in reality you are always subject to the chain of laws of every previous title holder.

Under my defintion where ownership=right to resell, you are still subject to the same legal chain, but your ownership wasnt an illusion...if you were smart enough to resell it before France/Russia's claim could be asserted you could have done it. Failure to do so isnt lack of ownership, its lack of foresight to exercise your right of ownership in a timely fashion.

Which brings it back to the value of title insurance. If you have it and France/Russia asserts their claim, you have ownership of something of equivalent value...the cash the title company owes you. Essentially youve exercised your right to resell, but the buyer is the title insurance company.