How Much Mixing of Labor with Land?

I recently had an email exchange with Walter Block; the conversation began on the topic of culture as raised in this essay of mine – with which Walter approved: “Another magnificent essay of yours….”

I have asked Walter’s permission to use our email exchange publicly, to which he agreed.

----------------------------------

I began by expressing some confusion regarding Walter’s positive comments to the referenced post:

I have been thinking about your initial email to me, at the beginning of this chain.  I must admit, I am confused - and I am sure this is on me and not on you. 

You are an advocate of open borders - or something resembling this.  Yet my post is not strictly about culture, as it also describes the risks to liberty associated with open borders.

What am I missing – at minimum, certainly misunderstanding?

----------------------------------

Walter responded with a clarification, breaking the issue into two component parts:

In my analysis, we can have our cake and eat it too. We can adhere, rigidly, to libertarian principle (open borders is the ONLY view compatible with libertiaranism, since the outsider who starts homesteading virgin land, or govt claimed land, violates no rights, and anyone who stops him is acting incompatibly with libertarianism), and, also, keep hordes of undesirables from our borders (by privatizing every single square inch of territory.) See below. Thus, you, Murray, Hans, most scholars associated with the MI are wrong. You, they are satisfied with the second of these desiderata, but give up on the first. I argue we’ve got to keep BOTH (I applauded your recent excellent defense of the second of these; but what about the first???)

----------------------------------

My reply:

As to government controlled land...I own it.  I know you disagree, and I suspect we will forever remain stuck with this chasm between us.

----------------------------------

Walter:

Ok, forget about government parks, streets, stuff like that. How about totally virgin land, never touched by humans, like in the middle of Wyoming, Alaska. This land is govt controlled, to be sure. But, according to Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe, on homesteading, no one owns it. How can you, or anyone else, own this land?

----------------------------------

And this entire preamble was for the benefit of background for my answer to Walter, focused on homesteading: 

Let’s expand the definition, from an expert; here, I found one:

Block: In the latter, correct homesteading view, you own only that which you mix your labor with.

So, I think I can safely say that homesteading is the mixing of labor with virgin land, land never before touched by human hands.  Is this a fair definition?

I will begin with a side point: I am not sure I agree that homesteading as defined by “mixing labor with land” (and subsequent legal transfer) is the only way to come to own property – but I haven’t developed my ideas enough to the point where I care to write about this.

Walter, I will begin with the practical: in today’s world, how many immigrants are moving to “virgin land, never touched by humans”?  I will suggest that the answer is about as close to zero as one can get.  In Europe, they are not climbing to the top of the Swiss Alps, in the US, they are not setting up camp in the middle of the Mojave (or in untouched land in Alaska).

So even if I grant your point that this is virgin land, never touched by humans, I find no practical use of your concept in today’s discussion of immigration.  Therefore, I find it dangerous to speak of open borders immigration based on a model that no immigrant employs.

If you are speaking purely theoretically, and at the same time speaking against the form of immigration we see around us today (in other words, your definition of “open borders immigration” is significantly narrower than the definition employed by those who demand it), this is a different matter – but I (and many others) would appreciate it if you said so clearly.

Now…how much mixing of labor with land is required to make one an owner?  Do you have an objective answer for this?  An answer that fits in all situations, all cultures, at all times?  An answer that can be derived solely from the NAP?

If you do, this would be a real breakthrough.  Remember – an objective answer: ten minutes of labor per square meter per week – something along these lines.

Now, absent an objective answer – meeting all of my conditions noted above – I suggest that the amount of labor to be mixed with the land is not fixed; the answer is to be subjectively derived.  Yes, at the extremes (just like with the extremes in defining “aggression”) we can all agree: a farmer ploughs the field, builds a home and barn, plants crops and regularly rotates the field, etc.  This is easy.  Conversely, for me to claim ownership of the sun would be kind of silly – and equally as easy to point to as the (opposite) extreme.

But absent an objective answer to the question…where do we draw the line between two such points?  After all, it is in the points in between – the continuum, as I believe you put it – where the difficulties (from a pure NAP standpoint) lie.

So, now we can address this virgin land in Wyoming or Alaska – government controlled, to be sure, and as you clarify.  What mixing of labor, if any, has a government employee or contractor done with this land?

Certainly they have built roads along the land; they provide security services over 100% of the land; they offer fire prevention services over 100% of the land; 100% of the land is regularly patrolled; they have built structures of various sorts – land offices, tourist rest stops; they manage it for proper use of forest harvesting; they manage the game on the land; etc. 

In every way, they treat the land as a private owner would treat similar land (except for the very important distinction made by Hoppe regarding Monarchs vs democracies, the distinction being irrelevant to this discussion). 

For example, it is said that Ted Turner owns a few million acres of forest.  I am certain he is not ploughing fields every day, nor is he having any of his employees do this.  Weyerhaeuser, similarly, owns hundreds of thousands if not millions of acres.  Yet, would you say neither Turner nor the lumber company “owns” the land? 

So what is different in these two cases – the public vs. the private?

Sure, you can say – “bionic, that is not enough mixing of labor!”  And I would say – “Walter, give me your objective definition to the issue of how much labor is required – and base this solely on the NAP.” 

And I suggest, in the end, you cannot.  My answer to the question of “How much labor?” is just as good as your answer to the question.  The NAP offers no guidance to this.

Now, given that my answer is just as good as yours, and I paid for the government employees and contractors who did the work and provided the services on that property in Wyoming and Alaska, well…just like Ted Turner…I own the land.

----------------------------------

Walter’s reply:

You say this: “Walter, I will begin with the practical: in today’s world, how many immigrants are moving to “virgin land, never touched by humans”?  I will suggest that the answer is about as close to zero as one can get. ”

As far as I’m concerned, this might even be a minus number. You are of course correct; the number is probably zero. Well, maybe one or two, in the history of the entire world. Immigrants usually go to big cities, sometimes to farming areas, virtually never, ever, do they settle in virgin unhomesteaded territory.

However, I think this is irrelevant to our discussion. I don’t even need one such person to make my point. Even a hypothetical such person will do me just fine. In my book Defending I, I defended the pimp. As far as I know, there is not a single solitary pimp who does not abuse his prostitutes. But I was discussing a sort of Platonic Pimp: a hypothetical one, who did not in any way abuse his prostitutes. I was trying to make the point that a pimp NEED not violate the NAP, even if all of them did. I was defending the idea of a pimp, not any actual one. I now make much the same point with regard to the immigrant who settles in virgin territory. I don’t much care if any ever have done such a thing. But, my Platonic immigrant COULD have done this. With this, I think I have proven the case for open borders. There is nothing, NOTHING, intrinsically wrong from the libertarian perspective with an immigrant violating immigration law. Any immigration official who stops him is himself violating the NAP. Remember, the policy advocated by opponents of open borders makes no provision to a (hypothetical) immigrant who wants to settle in the middle of Wyoming or Alaska, on virgin territory. The argument that you (and other US citizens) really own this land, so that my hypothetical immigrant is really trespassing, goes against everything that Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe, have ever said about homesteading, which, I assume, you and I agree upon.

I am just as concerned as you are about being overrun by hordes of rapefugees, and bombfugees, and running over people with a truck-fugees. I insist that my way of looking at the matter enables us to have our cake and eat it too. Privatize every square inch of the country. Then, and only then will an immigrant who enters this country be guilty of trespass. And then, along with open borders, we can retain our hold over the libertarian NAP. My fear is that your stance, and that of Murray and Hans, too, jettisons something very important to libertarians, the NAP.

----------------------------------

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

-          Don Knuth

My closing thoughts….

I will summarize my two main points from my lengthy response: first, Walter’s position – even if one grants that it is correct in theory (which I do not, given my second point and also for other reasons) – is a theory in search of an application in reality; second, the government controlled land is owned by me – and every other individual who has been forced to pay for the associated government labor.

Walter has addressed the first – he agrees his is a theoretical position with no useful application in today’s world – certainly not in the west. 

Given the significance of the issue to immigration, culture, government control, etc., (and in the context of the dialogue occurring today), I return to what I wrote earlier:

So even if I grant your point that this is virgin land, never touched by humans, I find no practical use of your concept in today’s discussion of immigration.  Therefore, I find it dangerous to speak of open borders immigration based on a model that no immigrant employs.

If you are speaking purely theoretically, and at the same time speaking against the form of immigration we see around us today (in other words, your definition of “open borders immigration” is significantly narrower than the definition employed by those who demand it), this is a different matter – but I (and many others) would appreciate it if you said so clearly.

We are not speaking today of pimps and prostitutes; there is no ongoing debate on this topic amongst libertarians.  There is a context to the dialogue of open borders and immigration – just ask Sheldon Richman, Jacob Hornberger, and many others on the left.

Given how well associated he is with “open borders,” it seems to me that it would serve our community well that Walter make clear the point: his “open borders” position has nothing to do with the general dialogue of today – the practical application of this topic within the context of today’s dialogue; his “open borders” position is irrelevant to the situation today.

Maybe Walter has done this; if so, I – and many others – have missed it.