Daily Anarchist Forum
May 06, 2021, 10:58:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Land  (Read 11625 times)
cookie1608
Guest
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:46:46 PM »

With an ancap society wouldn't almost all land be private property, obviously people would be allowed on it but it made me think that you would always have to obey their rules on the land so you would still have to obey lots of rules or you would be kicked off the land (which I, personally don't like) I dont want to sound like a socialist but surely there should be some areas people should be allowed to go to where no one owns the land, without regulation the whole country could become private property could it not? I find it a bit uncomfortable thinking that all land would belong to someone.
P.S. I have looked around on the internet and not found an answer to my query so please dont tell me to look it up.
Thanks
Logged
rothbardgroupie
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2014, 04:59:02 PM »

The population of earth will fit in Texas:

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#header-5

The reason people can't homestead is because governments exclude people from property they don't use.  Under ancap property norms, if you wanted a fresh start, you could claim unused land without paying a dime, so long as you could show that you're putting it to use. 

It's also worth pointing out that an ancap system is essentially a polycentric legal system.  So, I'd imagine that people would associate based on shared norm preferences.  Notice that's shared norms, not no norms.  That doesn't fit with "do anything you want on your own land".  The only way that works is if you're a monk.
Logged
cookie1608
Guest
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2014, 05:04:06 PM »

I see what your saying but what I mean is, is a country where everything is owned a good thing? Why would people build parks if there was no way to profit from it?
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2014, 06:18:07 PM »

I see what your saying but what I mean is, is a country where everything is owned a good thing? Why would people build parks if there was no way to profit from it?

Central Park in NYC is managed privately.  What makes you believe there is no profit in parks?  By the way, there are still rules/laws on government park land. 
Logged

ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2014, 07:03:26 PM »

I see what your saying but what I mean is, is a country where everything is owned a good thing? Why would people build parks if there was no way to profit from it?

As long as initiated force or fraud is non-existent (or punished appropriately) what does it matter about everything owned?  Besides 'owned' really just means 'controlled'.  Is there any land in the US that is not controlled? (yes you might find pockets where federal law is lax in enforcement, but the control is still there).

What makes you think that people can't profit from a park?  And/Or why would they necessarily want to profit? 
Logged
Victor
Full Member
***
Posts: 227


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2014, 11:41:38 PM »

It's a good question. Personally, I think most people would be pretty friendly. If you set up a moat around your property and shoot anyone who steps over a certain line, most people around you are probable going to say "Hey, that guy is crazy!", and stop interacting with you. They're going to stop selling you food, supplies, electricity, water, natural gas, internet access. You're not going to get any invitations to the local potlucks anymore.

So most people, because they want to be part of a community, to have friends, and to have all of the myriad of benefits that come from that, are going to act in such a way as to stay a part of that community. If people think that turning their home into a military base where all trespassers are shot on site is going to get them cut off from most people around them, they're going to let people wander across their property on the way home from school/work/what-have-you, and they're going to be friendly with people who come knock on their front door, at least to some minimum degree.

I hope that kinda makes sense. How many farmers around you would shoot every random stranger who came and knocked on their door if the government disappeared, and if they still kept ownership of their land and their farm? Maybe they'll shoot someone who breaks into their house and is making them afraid for their own or their family's safety, but wouldn't they usually be friendly to peaceful visitors? Where I live it's kind of a local custom to treat guests well, I don't think that's a result of just the existence of some commonly owned property, I think it's just because people where I live are relatively friendly.

On the other hand, if you're still unsure, then we could have a society in which most land is owned by individuals, (or even just families), but some land is commonly owned, or recognized as a sort of "safe-zone" or neutral territory where people can go when they have no where else to go. Roderick Long has talked about how lockean property rights can still allow for the existence of some commonly owned property, because multiple people can homestead a piece of property together. For example, a trail in the forest which is beaten down over time by the passing of many different individuals, could be thought of as commonly owned by all those who'd helped create the path by using it for travel. They all "mixed their labor" with it together, because they all helped clear the way and make it easier to use over time. So it could be considered all of theirs together.

Also, as others have mentioned, there's a lot of land that the government claims and keeps people from using which hasn't really been homesteaded by anyone. Why not let people homestead it? Some of the communities in the American Old West, which some anarcho-capitalists use as examples of prototype ancap communities, actually started out as squatter communities. I think Slab City, today, is a small community existing on land officially owned by the government, but no longer being used by the government. People just went out and set up shop, and they didn't really hurt anyone in doing so.

Also, in my own personal imagining of an anarchist society, I imagine there being certain places set up where people can go and use as a shelter if they need somewhere to stay. We already have places like the Salvation Army, or women's shelters, where people can go and stay temporarily if they're in danger or need to get back on their feet or things like that. I imagine people setting up places like that, "shelters" or "sanctuaries", where it's understood that people can go if they're in trouble or they need a safe place to rest, get a hot meal, a shower, and a change of clothes, and head back into the cyclone of life more prepared. If you have places like that to go to, then you can help make life easier for those who don't have the means to head out into the wilderness or the desert and homestead an unowned or abandoned block of earth for themselves.

Does that sort of answer your question? Any followup questions?
Logged

'To be happy, stay hidden.'
~Yopie, quoted in Under Paris by Neil Shea and Stephen Alvarez.
My Bitmessage Address: BM-NBofBs1WsHq4Z1MsS9CFEhistf8kLBy9
cookie1608
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2014, 01:07:47 AM »

Thanks Victor,
You've covered everything really, thanks
Logged
Victor
Full Member
***
Posts: 227


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2014, 11:53:29 AM »

Thanks Victor,
You've covered everything really, thanks

Cool Smiley
Logged

'To be happy, stay hidden.'
~Yopie, quoted in Under Paris by Neil Shea and Stephen Alvarez.
My Bitmessage Address: BM-NBofBs1WsHq4Z1MsS9CFEhistf8kLBy9
rothbardgroupie
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2014, 12:17:22 PM »

I see what your saying but what I mean is, is a country where everything is owned a good thing? Why would people build parks if there was no way to profit from it?

By quoting that everyone can fit into Texas, I was trying to make the point that if use is a requirement of homesteading and ownership, then most of the earth won't be owned.  The only things that will be owned are things that are used.  So, I think it's good that if someone can use something unowned, they can take advantage of that opportunity.  I also think it's good that if someone isn't making use of land, then they can't exclude others from it.

Profit according to austrian economics is a psychic phenomenon.  So, someone could make a park and psychically profit from it, without earning a dime.  Remember, there are no taxes.  If you can sustain yourself on a park, then you don't need an additional income.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2014, 12:59:08 PM »

  I also think it's good that if someone isn't making use of land, then they can't exclude others from it.

I think that view is full of problems.
Logged

cookie1608
Guest
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2014, 01:48:04 PM »

Also, how would borders work in an ancap country, as in immigration laws, would it just be completely open? And in most countries the government gives you citizenship after 5 years, how would citizenship work in an ancap society?
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2014, 02:45:50 PM »

Also, how would borders work in an ancap country, as in immigration laws, would it just be completely open? And in most countries the government gives you citizenship after 5 years, how would citizenship work in an ancap society?

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that such things could exist. 

I suspect people would try to replicate it, but there would be no way to force the issue.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 02:48:36 PM by Syock » Logged

cookie1608
Guest
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2014, 04:01:10 PM »

Well, take England for example,
We have 2 countries joined onto us, would the people from both countries freely move into and out of our country?
And in regards to citizenship, I see what you mean, in a country where every living human has natural rights I suppose anyone that enters the country would also be entitled to the same rights. And as there would be no voting, no public health care system, no taxes, citizenship wouldn't really grant any benefits without a state to give them to you.
Logged
cookie1608
Guest
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2014, 04:03:46 PM »

Also would people that wanted a different system, take statists for example, be able to just buy some land and apply their own political philosophies to that land?
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2014, 05:03:46 PM »

Also would people that wanted a different system, take statists for example, be able to just buy some land and apply their own political philosophies to that land?

I don't see why not.  

The issue is merely consent.  That of course comes with the issue that the 'state' wouldn't be able to force their children to agree to it when the land is passed on to them.  There could be some stipulation in the will that the children agree to join or the land gets turned over to the state.  Perhaps the state gets the right of first refusal on the land transfer (like some company stock currently does) to protect them from the chance that the kids will take the land now, and leave/sell later.  It would behave like a land holding company.  The state itself would be acting like any other hostile state if they tried to force the children to consent and will have to deal with that.  This is why I have always contended that this is the only system that is really voluntary/anarchy.  

Well, take England for example,
We have 2 countries joined onto us, would the people from both countries freely move into and out of our country?

As there wouldn't really be a country, there wouldn't be some government to tell them they can't travel.  They would be limited only by their own ability/cost of travel.  
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 05:17:03 PM by Syock » Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!