Pages

Friday, May 12, 2017

Success!




I cannot claim victory, but I achieved my primary objective.  I refer to my dialogue with Walter Block regarding the intersection of homesteading and immigration.  If you have not read it, begin there.

Walter has now replied by email on the specific point: the NAP does not offer an objective answer to how much labor must be mixed with the land to determine “ownership.”  From these, I conclude: given that even the so-called vacant stretches of desert and the mountaintops have “some” labor mixed into them by government employees – whom I have paid for; therefore the government controlled land is owned by me – and every other individual who has been forced to pay for the associated government labor.

From Walter’s email:

This is brilliant on your part, brilliant. I never thought of that counter argument to my position, and I thank you for it. I never even realized there could be any counter argument to my position, so sure was I in its favor

Like I said, the earlier piece will give context to this one.

But, I don’t think it suffices.

But it does suffice for my purposes, certainly my primary purpose.

No, I of course cannot give you any exact criteria for successful homesteading, such as two months per acre, or anything like that. In Murray’s view, to which I fully subscribe, it all depends upon context, history, past practices.

This was my primary purpose.  The answer cannot be derived objectively from the NAP; therefore any answer – like the answer to every question regarding definitions of “aggression” and “property” – requires “context, history, past practices.”  In other words, custom.  One cannot speak of the non-aggression principle without also considering custom.

But, I think you let a good thing, for your side of this debate, get the better of you. You take a reasonable principle, and run too far with it.

So, my principle is sound….

Nice try, but I don’t think your position is correct.

…I just took it too far.

Just keep in mind: my first objective was to get Walter off of his mark.  Why is this important?  In the context of immigration, it is not as simple to say (as Walter has said) that immigrants are free to homestead government controlled land. 

Speaking of taking something too far:

Suppose there were no Indians when Columbus came along to the New World. He then plants a Spanish flag somewhere in what is now the US. He builds a few roads nearby. Etc. According to your argument, this would be legitimate homesteading over the entire country.

The US lands an astronaut on Mars or the Moon. He plants a US flag there. He builds a few roads, etc, claims the entire heavenly body as the private property of the US govt, and stands ready to protect this claim by force. According to your argument, he’d be in the right.

But I am making neither of those arguments.  I refer to Walter’s statement earlier:

In Murray’s view, to which I fully subscribe, it all depends upon context, history, past practices.

I am not speaking to the context of Columbus; I am not speaking regarding the man on the moon or Mars.  These can be debates for another day.  I am speaking of land-ownership within the context, history and past practices of the United States specifically.

So, it is possible that I took a sound principle and went too far with it…or not.  In theory, I could agree with Walter…or disagree.  My point is that I do so – either way – on principles other than the non-aggression principle.  And so does Walter.

Let’s Examine This Further

So what of the “context, history, past practices.”  Again, from Walter’s email:

The idea that because the govt builds a few roads 1000 miles away from an uninhabited part of Alaska, claims ownership over it, it willing to fight to protect it, seems to me so far away from legitimate homesteading as to be totally unrelated to it.

Let’s not speak of a thousand miles between roads; let’s look at something bite-sized – private landholdings, in some cases larger than some states.  Each of the following individuals own land larger than Rhode Island and in some cases larger than Delaware.  In total, the top 25 private owners of land hold over 19.5 million acres – more land than each of eleven states of the fifty, and more than the six smallest combined.


#1 John Malone owns 2.2 million acres

Malone has served in executive positions in telecommunications firms and is currently the chairman of Liberty Media Corp.

He nabbed the top spot from his friend and business partner Ted Turner in 2011 when he purchased a million acres of woods in Maine and New Hampshire. The splurge followed his purchase of 290,000-acre Bell Ranch in New Mexico the previous year.

Much of it is ranchland, but the majority is forest.

Look at some of his ranchland; do you see roads, high-rises (other than the hilltops), dwellings, signs of civilization of any type?


 



#2 Ted Turner owns 2 million+ acres

Ted Turner founded the Turner Broadcasting System that launched CNN and several other cable successful programs.

He owns 2 million acres in 12 states and Argentina. The 8,800-acre Nonami Plantation known for quail hunting is his most recent and largest acquisition in his home state of Georgia.

He keeps 51,000 bison on his ranches; is it appropriate that he decides who else is allowed to set up shop?




 




OK, you get the idea – no more pictures.

#3 Archie Aldis 'Red' Emmerson owns 1.84 million acres

Red Emmerson is president of Sierra Pacific Industries, a family-run lumber manufacturing business that ranks as California's largest private landowner. He owns just under two million acres of forestland in California and Washington, adding over 100,000 acres in 2011.

#4 Brad Kelley owns 1.5 million acres

Kelley founded a tobacco company in 1990 and sold it for $1 billion in 2001. His properties span Texas, New Mexico, and Florida and are used to breed rare species of animals.

#5 The Irving Family owns 1.2 million acres

The Canadian company, Irving Woodlands, has roots dating back to 1882 when James D. Irving founded a company that included a sawmill, gristmill, lumber business and farms. Their US landholdings are centered in Maine.

Except as noted, the information above comes from Business Insider, referencing The Land Report.  Who publishes this report?

Our members are elite licensed real estate brokerages and agents that exclusively represent various types of properties across the country, including rural land, recreational properties, hunting and fishing properties, farms, ranches, timber land, luxury homes, waterfront properties and large tracts of land.

I have highlighted several of the types of properties that they represent.  These are properties available for purchase by private individuals; these are also the types of properties that government controls.  The ones not highlighted, e.g. “farms” and “ranches,” also offer examples of government controlled land that the government leases to private farmers and ranchers.

In other words, basically every type of land controlled by the government is also an example of land that is owned by private individuals.

These individuals own such properties by the millions of acres; the government controls such properties by the millions of acres.  If size matters, well these landowners can hold their own.

The individuals have roads and buildings (or not) sufficient for the purpose of the property; the government has roads and buildings (or not) sufficient for the purpose of the property.  In other words, the amount of labor mixed with land is dependent on the property owner’s view of the best use for the land.  There is no formula.

The individuals have rules about who can and can’t enter the property; the government has rules about who can and can’t enter the property.  This needs no explanation, and certainly not in the context of immigration.

So…what’s the difference between government controlled land and privately owned land (within the context of this discussion)?

Conclusion

Now…I do not want to get into a debate about theft from the Indians, crony capitalism, etc.  Let’s keep this simple and stick to the context.

Walter, the questions as follows: Is your argument that land ownership by such individuals as those listed above is “illegal” under the NAP?  If it is considered illegal under the NAP, on what basis?  If it is not considered illegal under the NAP, then how, exactly, have I “run too far with it” by suggesting the same regarding government land?

When answering the questions, consider Murray’s view, to which you fully subscribe: it all depends upon context, history, past practices.

Walter, don’t let your mentor down!  And don’t let me, your tormentor, down!

28 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looks to me like this is a good argument for Geolibertarianism/Georgism.

    Especially given that those huge tracts of land were purchased in part with ill-gotten gains.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a fan of Folvary

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/search/label/Fred%20Foldvary

      I often wonder why this idea hasn't caught on with the Austrian / libertarian community. I suspect it is because it is usually explained as a "government" being the owner. I have written that it need not be.

      I am curious - can you be more explicit in why you make this connection? I thank you in advance.

      Delete
  3. I hope that Block understands the huge compliment being given, that his opinion is a prize.
    BM, if you ever in the South Houston area let me know. I buy you a few well deserved beers. Heck, if you give me a couple of months heads up, I will brew a batch.

    Grrrrrrr. One of these days, fingers and brain will meet .. then the grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shiner Bock, brisket, spring, Hill Country, Bluebonnets.

      I know this is a but north of Houston, but atmosphere counts for a lot.

      Delete
    2. ...a *bit* north of Houston...

      It seems we share a common affliction.

      Delete
    3. But which bbq joint Bionic? Sauce or No Sauce? Don't forget the dance halls. Used to be lots of dance halls, not so many now. Pivo and Kolaches..Czechs and Germans, Germans and Czechs. Cotton in the Blacklands...not so much now.

      Delete
    4. I enjoy the country but I am a salt guy and prefer the coast but I make allowances for bayous. Go outside the comfort zone, we can have Shiners, Saint Arnold's, moist brisket, etc. but first, I can put you on a kayak a give you a tour of a local bayou for some gator sighting.

      Delete
    5. If I said I like my gator on TV, would you still respect me in the morning?

      Delete
    6. Of course. You do have a brain.

      Some years back, two of my co-workers wrote a list, on my office whiteboard, on ways I am going to get killed. I cannot remember all of the items but they included:
      1) Crashing in a home built/designed flying contraption. (wish of mine, to design/build a flying device, not the getting killed part)
      2) Falling off a tree while pruning.
      3) Something weird I ate.
      4) Ate by a shark.
      5) Ate by a gator.

      You smart, me, well, I love Calvin and Hobbes. When it is time for me to go, it is go time. Until then, it does not matter.

      FOr validation on your wisdom, my story:
      http://www.texaskayakfisherman.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186487&hilit=armand

      Delete
  4. A huge part of libertarianism and the NAP is acknowledging what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore when we say that if an individual takes something without permission, it is theft. When the government does the same, we also call it theft.

    By the same token, if an individual can keep someone off his property, then the government can do it too.

    A government can own land, as can an individual, and so can a corporation. A corporation is more similar to a government than an individual. If Professor Block somehow objects to government land ownership, then he can check the SEC and notice that my country, Australia, is a registered corporation. Since it is a corporation, it can own land, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. May I post anonymously?

    ReplyDelete
  7. My view has been that since we're told that we "all own the roads". As is the common understanding of government roads. When they're auctioned off we'd all get an equal share. Or perhaps homestead over the length of road in front of our homes/apartments/properties. The length likely to be charged for use via a GPS sort of payment system. I would contend that we all do own those government lands to some degree, as we're told and, would want my 40 acres and one of those 350 million mules. Of course when it all collapses it's just going to be a big scramble rush for a while and we'll learn that we were actually lied to about "our" government ownership.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would be over my own head if I were to try and jump right into this topic. But I am friendly, and curious, too. I think bm is doing a great job of distilling this topic down, and almost forcing one to acknowledge the importance of context, history, and 'folk-ways' in coloring how we view NAP.

    I said I was curious. BM, do you think, in a way, that your arguments regarding context, history, 'folkways', how we do things around here, etc. tend to undermine (not to use too strong a word, I hope) objectivist ethics? I believe you self-identify as an objectivist, whereas I do not, not that anyone would care about me, but I am always very interested in this area of thought.

    One could argue that the NAP is deontologically correct or true, but what of this NAP++ *?

    * - NAP++ refers to NAP + Context.

    Meh, just some things I like to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will ponder along with you....

      "Objectivist" has too much of man's reason in it for me; the Germanic Middle Ages might offer a more appropriate description of my views.

      NAP + Context? As humans, how do we avoid "context"? We are not automatons; we are not merely economic actors - not everything is a "trade" (contrary to Ayn Rand's ethics).

      Of course, some context is difficult or impossible to square with the NAP - snipping off the foreskin of an infant is an easy example.

      But most context is perfectly compatible with the NAP; as Mises said (a big paraphrase): nation is a chosen result, not a forced structure.

      Delete
    2. "Of course, some context is difficult or impossible to square with the NAP - snipping off the foreskin of an infant is an easy example."

      If you were to choose "difficult" over "impossible" how would you proceed in a debate?

      Delete
    3. On this topic? Is the debate in a synagogue or at the Mises Institute?

      Delete
    4. In this case, I would decline participation.

      Delete
    5. I'm interested, BM...

      Would there be a case that you would at the Mises Institute (just not this one)? Or just not at all there?

      Delete
    6. If we are speaking application and not theory...bionic has no face...so it would be rather difficult anywhere.

      Anyway, who pays attention to a mosquito?

      Delete
    7. BM, I hope my comments don't seem unnecessarily confrontational. Your writings have influenced my thinking substantially. I've dropped most of my libertine tendancies as a result of reading your blog. Thank you.

      Delete
    8. Jeff, thank you for reading and for the feedback.

      Delete
  9. Very Misesian and Mengerian, and much closer to my own view than I supposed! Thank-you for your kind reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gpond

      Consider...for as long as we have known each other (and I speak of me just as much as of you) - I suspect 6-7 years - we are still somewhat a mystery to each other.

      What must this say about our intellectual and philosophical relationships with others?

      Delete
    2. I consider you a journey-man. As am I. You take the journey and see where it takes you. You are willing to change. Like me. Consistency is important only *after* a truth is found. Not before. I am bound to change. I seek. You too, I think.

      Delete