From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarians (lost the original subject) (LONG)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.071121.555@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>And how did you *gain* your property originally, if it wasn't through
>the initiation of force?  Yes, you might have inherited it, or bought
>it, but how did the original owner get it without initiating force?

The only legitimate way to acquire ownership of an unclaimed
resource is to mingle your labor with it sio that they become
inseparable.  For example, the first farmer to till and plant a
field has homesteaded a right to that property.  On the other hand,
a
nomadic hunter gather who periodically wander across the same land
has not established an ownership right as he has left no permanent
enhancement to its value.  This is not anything original on my
part.  It's basically just a paraphrasing of John Locke who was the
major influence on the founder of this nation with regard to
property rights.

Of course, over the history of human kind much land which may have
been originally acquired in just Lockian fashion has likely been
transferred unjustly.  Libertarians support the return of all stolen
property to the just owners WHEN THE CLAIM CAN BE ADEQUATELY
DOCUMENTED.  In most cases today the records are inadequate to
assign true ownership and the best we can do is recognize the most
claim based on legitimate transfer (sale, gift, or inheritance).

>>There are no half truths involved here.  You can agree or disagree
>>with the premise that people have property rights, but we take that
>>as an axiom and aren't trying to hide it in the least.
>
>You can accept the idea that people have the right to the results of their
>labor without accepting property rights.  They aren't the same thing.
>This is a (the?) fundamental problem with libertarianism.

Sorry but I don't see how you can accept this.  If I find an
unclaimed piece of land which I clear and place into cultivation
part of the fruit of my labor is that the field is there to be
planted again without the clearing and other labor I invested
initially.  If I can not lay claim to the property how can I hold
onto that fruit of my labor?

>>Owning something means being able to control it's use.  If someone
>>wants to use something that belongs to you they are free to agree
>>to your terms or not to use it.  There is no force involved.
>
>>How does not recognizing property rights improve on this situation?
>>What if there is a piece of land and both Ted and Bill what to use
>>it for different purposes.  If it is to be used for anything one
>>will have to either convince or force the other to go along with
>>their idea of what it should be used for.  It Ted gets Frank to back
>>him up and they "democratically" decide to use it the way Ted wants
>>it to be used, haven't Ted and Frank "forced" their view on Bill?
>
>If Ted runs over to this piece of land and puts a sign on it, "Property
>of Ted" and then gets Frank (and the rest of the government) to help him
>prevent Bill from using the property, haven't Ted and Frank and the
>government "forced" *their* view on Bill?

I have already explained that Ted can not claim ownership simply by
sticking up a sign. In doing so he has not mingled his labor with
the land.  I have been assuming that you understood the concept of
justly acquired property as defined by John Locke but it appears
that you don't.  Please go back and read some Locke if you wantr to
continue this discussion.

>Yes, but Locke's defence of acquiring large amounts of private property
>(ie more than subsistence level) is incredibly flawed.

Well, if you have read Locke you certainly came away with some
different impression than I did.  You'll have to be more specific
about what you perceive of as his flaws.

>>>Russ Anderson
>
>>/June

Good grief! I'm not even sure who I'm talking to any more.
/June