Homesteading

In articulating the basis for property rights, libertarians engage in the grand philosophical tradition of their putative classical liberal forebears and speculate about the origins of current human institutions in a kind of "state of nature." Homesteading is a kind of "origin story" of property that boils down to, effectively, "finders keepers." Part of the challenge here, besides the historicity of this origin, is how we get from there to here, in the modern day.

## Philosophical Ancestor: John Locke

Much of this theory is a kind of adaptation of Locke's theories of property acquisition. (Do more here later.)

## In Their Own Words

Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains the basis for the theory of homesteading as follows (emphasis added, some omissions made):

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.
Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, **conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual**. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.
But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? ...as for scarce resources that can be controlled only indirectly (that must be appropriated with our own nature-given, i.e., un-appropriated, body): **Exclusive control (property) is acquired by and assigned to that person, who appropriated the resource in question first or who acquired it through voluntary (conflict-free) exchange from its previous owner**. For only the first appropriator of a resource (and all later owners connected to him through a chain of voluntary exchanges) can possibly acquire and gain control over it without conflict, i.e., peacefully. Otherwise, if exclusive control is assigned instead to latecomers, conflict is not avoided but contrary to the very purpose of norms made unavoidable and permanent.
However, here is an interesting little self-commentary he also provides (emphasis added in bold):

Let me emphasize that I consider this theory as essentially irrefutable, as *a priori* true. In my estimation this theory represents one of the greatest – if not *the* greatest – achievement of social thought. It formulates and codifies the immutable ground rules for all people, everywhere, who wish to live together in peace.
**And yet: This theory does not tell us very much about real life.**
Wow! I am impressed already by this willingness to base our social ethics on abstract principles without a basis in reality!

The much more sophisticated libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick describes the connective tissue between the homestead and the now in terms of what he calls "just transfers" (from here, in lieu of his own words):

If the holding came about by permissible and title-conferring modes of action, the possessor will be entitled to it. If the holding came about by modes of action that are not permissible (or are permissible but not title-conferring) the possessor will not be entitled to it. Thus, entitlements are historical. Individual A will have an entitlement to holding H if and only if A's possession of H has the right sort of history. This stance accords with the common-sense intuition that an agent's acquiring economically valuable objects in certain ways—e.g., creating those objects out of unowned natural materials—generates entitlements for that agent over those objects while an agent's acquiring objects in other ways—e.g., seizing those objects from another who has created them out of unowned natural materials—does not generate entitlements for that agent over those objects. A distribution of holdings across individuals will be just insofar as the particular holdings that constitute that distribution are just—rather than the justice of any particular individual's holding depending on the holistic justice of the distribution of which it is a part.
Just acquisition takes the form of just initial acquisition, just transfer, or just rectification of an unjust taking. An existing holding will be just if it arises from an act of just initial acquisition or an act of just initial acquisition followed by one or more acts of just transfer, or an act of just rectification that counteracts an unjust taking of a just holding. An adequate theory of justice in holdings will specify the processes that constitute just initial acquisitions, just transfers, and just acts of rectification. Nozick tells us that each of these principles is a “complicated truth” that he will not attempt to formulate. Thus, we never get statements from Nozick of what specific initial acquisition or transfer or rectification processes that result in agent C's possession of H generate or convey to C an entitlement over H. Hence, Nozick never directly seeks to explain why certain specific processes—certain specific means of acquisition—have the power to generate or convey entitlements.
## Real-World Property Transfers

The reason why Hoppe may have to admit the unrealistic nature of his principle and Nozick is vague on this subject is because here in reality, there is not a single piece of property on Earth that cannot, somewhere in its chain of production or historical transfer of titles from one owner to the next, be shown to be stained with the blood of some victim of conquest, fraud, or theft, whether practiced by individuals or governments. The fact that this principle can be traced to Locke is significant: Locke was trying to explain away the entitlement that Native Americans one might argue had a right to the land of America. The history of the United States overall is, indeed, very problematic for any homesteading theory, even as the name itself, calling to mind the westward march of white Americans in the name of Manifest Destiny, belies this very problem.

How exactly can any property in the United States be considered to flow to its current owners by a chain of just transfers from an initial just acquisition? When all of the land was acquired by the government by any means, we have sufficiently abandoned some libertarian principles of just transfer: the government is an agent of force that is illegitimate, so none of its acts can be legitimate. Even beyond that, the acquisition of America is a story of fraud and conquest. The development of America in large part is the story of theft of labor through human bondage. All modern property in the U.S. is tainted by this history either directly (real estate) or indirectly (any commodities made from natural resources gleaned from the land, any labor supported by any such commodities).

### What Is To Be Done?

Is this a problem libertarians are prepared to deal with? (tl;dr - lol nope, put more Hoppes in here laterz)