Libertarian land ownership theory
 

Here is libertarian land theory for you...

I own my land. It's mine, and nobody else on earth has any claim to it. I can do with it as I please. My neighbors have no say in what I do with my land as long as I'm not polluting into ground water or otherwise trespassing on their land. If I'm not living on my land, it's still mine. If you camp out on my land, you have no ownership of it. If you build a house on my land, you have no ownership of the land or the house. If you and your family move into the house and live there for 10 generations, you still have no ownership of the land or the house. The land belongs to me (assuming I've lived 10 generations) or to those I've given it to, and not to you. Your presence on my land does not give you any ownership of it; not even if you've been there for 300 years.

If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.

If you find land that is not claimed by anyone else, you can claim it for yourself...assuming you can defend it. For instance, the American Indians didn't claim to own land because they didn't think land could be owned. This means no land was ever stolen from them and any claims of such are completely empty.

We can apply this to the middle-east as well.

As far as recorded history goes, it shows that Israel has always been controlled by one empire or another. It was controlled by the Egyptian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire that we know of.

While I'm against imperialism and the initiation of force, land won in wars is honestly acquired, especially if the land was won by the defending force rather than the attacking force.

The land currently called Jordan, and the land being fought over by the nomadic Arabs of the area calling themselves "Palestinians" was historically all considered Israel. At no point during all of recorded history did these nomads own a single grain of sand in the disputed territory. It was owned by the UK, and the Turks, and the Egyptians, but never the squatters living on it.

The UK generously decided to split the land in half and give half of it to those squatters, who previously owned nothing. They gave the other half to the Jewish people to return part of their historical homeland so they would have a nation of their own after being persecuted throughout the world for so long.

Rather than be grateful for finally owning some land for the first time in history, these racist murderers claimed they were wronged, and started murdering Jewish people. They have said they will not stop until the last Jew is dead. They don't recognize their right to even live.

Israel on the other hand, has extended kindness, opportunity, charity, and political freedom to Arabs at a level they could never get in any Arab nation. They allow Arab men AND WOMEN to become Israeli citizens and to live, vote, work, and hold political office within Israel. There is no Arab nation on earth that allows Jews to become citizens, and none allow women to vote. Very few of them allow anyone to vote.

Israel has been under constant attack from their neighbors, but has tried to reason with them, tried to broker deals, has made concessions, and has gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to reaching out a hand in friendship, but the response is always the same. The hand they extend in friendship is cut off.

Things became really clear in 1996 when the Israeli government offered all the land they won in 1967 back to the so-called "Palestinians" and offered them everything they wanted other than automatic citizenship to Israel through the "right of return". Israel said they'd even work with the UN to declare "Palestine" to be an actual country. All they had to do was not kill any Jews for 2 weeks. They couldn't do it.

Israel had exhausted all reasonable actions to make peace. It became readily apparent that they didn't want peace, they only wanted to kill Jews.

You can't reason with people who are without reason and don't recognize your right to live. The Arab nations have some of the worst human rights records on earth and are all worse than Israel. You can't make deals with those who have spent the last 60 years shaking your hand while stabbing you in the back with the other hand.

No other country would have been as patient, understanding, and kind-hearted as the peace loving Israelis. No other nation would allow themselves to have women and children targeted for murder for 60 years without just destroying those who attack them once and for all.

Israel is very powerful, and isn't interested in conquest. They easily have the military might to defeat every other nation in the middle-east and to take all of their land if that was their aim, but they haven't done that. All they want is to live in peace on their own land without having their racist neighbors blowing up their women and children. The fact that Israel is as strong as it is, without just destroying those who have been attacking them for the last 60 years is a testament to their desire for peace.

If Mexicans started blowing up women and children in American malls, bus stops, movie theaters, etc. because they used to own a lot of it, do you really think America should make concessions and deals for 60 years before we just destroy them and take all of Mexico? Do you really think we should say, "Ok, we'll give you Arizona back, but you can't have Texas or California? (I wish they'd take Texas back)

Do you think we should ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves? Do you really think we should worry about the opinions of those in other nations if they call us monsters for defending ourselves? Should we just allow them to blow up our women and children if they happen to run back and hide among Mexican women and children?

This analogy is flawed though because Mexico actually did own the southwest part of America, while the so-called Palestinians never owned anything to begin with.

...And?

Define safe.

If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe?

If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident?

I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions.

Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business.

So, by extension,
If I come up behind you and sucker punch you (government of me waging war on government of you) and take your wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel it is all OK?

Cool! I'll be right over. Oh wait. No, that doesn't seem right to me. I must not be a libertarian.

Uh,...don't forget; Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Depends on who you ask. From what I've read, the British were only too happy to leave Palestine when their UN mandate ended...especially given that some Jews started using terrorism to force the British out (e.g. the King David Hotel explosion).

It doesn't matter if I want to open a porno theater across from an elementary school, a sewage treatment plant, a nuclear material's processing plant, a coal mine, or a garbage dump. I'm responsible for any damages I cause. I don't have to pay for damages I haven't caused so a bond is out of the question. Why should I have my money tied up in bonds when I can have it earning serious money for me? Unless you can prove that I've caused damage (which I wouldn't because I'm a libertarian), you have no rights when it comes to what I do with my own land regardless of the proximity of your land. Neither does any government at any level. Any laws they make to the contrary are illigitimate.


Luckily our government was originally built with the protection of private property in mind. A nation is only as free as it recognizes the sanctity of private ownership to be. The government's job here is to defend the private property of the weak so they can keep it even if they are unable to defend it on their own. I certainly don't agree with the strong victimizing the weak. It's just the way things have been during all of recorded humanity.

Sadly, our government is moving away from defending private property and is now helping private businesses to steal it from citizens.

I was thinking if 3foot took your, "wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel", the government would be the least of his problems. :lol:

I can outrun him. ;)

Can you outrun a .357 Magnum?

OK, so instead of sucker punching someone, I'd just shoot them. Does might make right?

Historically? Yes.

I can outrun a .357 magnum, but can I outrun a .357.357.357 magnum?

Well, I knew that part. what about morally or ethically? Are we up to our own interpretaion of this? what happens when two libertarians don't agree upon points of dogma, do they just "duke it out"?

I'm not being sarcastic, I am very curious about the libertarian party especially since I despise all the other parties. I've only heard about libertarians in vague and innuendo ridden terms.

Where can I find out more?

I just vote for any third party. I don't even care what they stand for, I'm just opting out of the ping-pong game.

Then you're not seizing and holding his house and chattel. :headshake

It's getting more and more complicated...

So Libertarianism is another instance of "whoever has the biggest guns owns everything"?

Does this theory include any capturing and ravishing of maidens?

I think Radar's original point has totally flipped over on its back and died like a cockroach.

No. It's whomever has the biggest guns is the most secure in their honestly aquired property. Libertarians don't support imperialism, foreign military interventionism, or any other initiation of force, especially for political gain or social engineering.

If you've got enough guns, people can't take your land. If they've got more guns than you, chances are they can and there's nothing you can do about it.

Maybe the conversation just took a horrible wrong turn somewhere?

And then it's theirs.

So whoever has the biggest guns owns everything.

So instead of investing in a 401-K, I should be building a stockpile of black market assault rifles?

Not necessarily so. There are lots of people who have less guns than the guy with the most guns, and they could combine their guns together to take down the guy with the most guns. This prevents any one person (or country) from having everything.

Power is constantly shifting.

So what youre saying is...

...

...israel has the right to the land, but if the terrorists get powerful enough to take it then tough shit for israel?

That's right. Has it ever been any other way? :question:

Pretty much.... though they'd have to have more guns than Israel and America which isn't likely since the U.S. military budget is larger than the next 20 largest military spenders combined. Israel is the 12th largest military spender.

And this...is...the main part of being...Libertarian...?

I have to say...this really doesn't sound like a new idea...

Actually the root of all libertarianism comes down to a couple of principles.

1. Self ownership - You own yourself and nobody else has any claim on your body or the fruits of your labor. Our property is an extension of ourselves. We have the right to defend ourselves, our rights, and our property with any level of force needed (including deadly force)

2. Personal Responsibility - While you're free to make your own decisions, you are responsible for those decisions and can't expect others to pay for your mistakes.

3. Non-Aggression Principle - Nobody has the right to use force other than in thier own defense, or in the defense of those who hire you as an agent. This means it's never ok to start aggression against someone else, but it's always ok to use aggression in your defense. When it comes to nations, it's never ok to start wars or practice military interventionism. It's not ok to take sides in disputes, to arm other nations, to use our military to defend other nations or to "liberate" oppressed people, etc.

Unless you think you can take their land?

So individuals can be hired but not nations?:confused:

Yes. You can't hire a nation because that is an act of aggression against the citizens and soldiers of that nation. Their resources and lives will be claimed by the government you've hired. Generally, libertarians acknowlege the right of the nation to defend itself but do not extend that right to defending so-called allies. (Besides whose constitution has our military personel sworn to uphold and protect?) Radar is acknowleging the reality that the US will defend Israel but that reality does not fit in libertarian theory.

If you start wars with the intent of taking land, or for any reason that is not defending your own nation from a direct and imminent attack, you're not a libertarian.

That's right. Private individuals can appoint other private individuals as protectors, but since the military is paid for by ALL citizens, it's illigitimate to use a military to defend another nation. For instance, let's say Italy and Ireland went to war for some reason (Italy would lose) and the American military joined in the dispute on one side or the other.

If the military helped the Italians, all of the Irish people in America would be paying to murder their own families despite their own wishes, and vice versa if the situation were turned around.

The only time war is legitimate is when your own country is directly attacked BY ANOTHER COUNTRY, and even then, only when war is formally declared, and then only against the nation who attacked you.

Starting wars is also the ultimate act of aggression, and it unnecessarily places the lives of Americans in danger, and it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Griff gets it. I don't think America should take any side in this or any other foreign dispute, or send any money OR WEAPONS to any other country in foreign aid.

Interesting. So, if I open a shooting range on my land and bullets happen to fall on your land, causing damage, I would be responsible?

What about indirect damages? Someone mentioned a poorly located strip club, if you attact customers that harm my customers or drive them away I have a very strong intrest in shutting you down. Even lowering the desirability of my location is damage in my mind.

Yeah, I think we've done this one before.

If I shoot my high-powered rifle on my land, and the bullet enters your house through a wall, missing your head by an inch, am I responsible for anything other than repairing the hole?

And what if the windows are open? Let's say I shoot a bullet with my high powered rifle through one open window, past your forehead, then next to your wife's ear, and just miss the top of your kid's head before exiting through the other open window and landing in a lake down the street, am I all cool as far as libertarians go?

No -- the owner of that lake is going to require compensation for introducing lead into his water supply.

I forgot to mention that I own the lake. ;)

Really? That's a damn fine shootin' lake. You may want to consider taking the blocking house by force so you can own that property and have a clear shot.

As far as libertarians go, we believe you have the right to do anything you want as long as your actions don't physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property, or infringe upon their rights.

Merely pointing a high powered rifle through your window in the direction of other people is an assault. It is a crime as it endangers the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other. The person with the rifle should do serious jail time.

See, this is why libertarians don't have more power in the government.

Too many different versions, too much confusion, too much disagreement...

Okay, seriously, my question:

If I setup a shooting range on my property and your property is downrange and I hit a window, I'm responsible and owe damages. You can't stop me from setting up a shooting range on my property, but my actions affected you and you can prove it.

If I setup a coal burning powerplant on my property, you cannot stop me nor can you pass any laws preventing it. The smoke from the burning coal may drift high over your property, but the mercury from that smoke can pollute your rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. The damage caused can be widespread and affect many people in many countries: Food supplies can be contaminated, pollution can destroy crops, ocean waters and the life in them thousands of miles away can be impacted. The output causes damage both in terms of property and in terms of human life.

Yet, it is not your land and you have no ownership of it. I am not trespassing on your land. The land and power plant belong to me, not to you. I can do with them as I please. Proof of indirect damage is difficult and you cannot force me to test the plant emissions. How does the theory of libertarian land ownership handle this?

So reckless endangerment is assault.

Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?

There are no "versions" of libertarianism; there is only libertarianism. ALL libertarianism is all based on the 3 things I mentioned, and is exactly as I have stated. It's consistent and it makes sense.

Pollution is trespassing, and endangerment of property and people. It is a crime and everyone who does it should be held criminally and financially liable for any damages that can be measurably and directly related to what is done. Laws can be made to shut down places that endanger others or infringe upon their rights. If someone sets up a firing range, they are endangering you if they have not taken steps to ensure that there isn't a single bullet that leaves their property and enters onto yours or even goes in your general direction.

If you can prove a broken window happened, you can also prove you were endangered, and can legitimately shut down the range, collect damages including punative damages.

If you can't prove damages, you're not entitled to anything.

Ah, thank you for clearing this up. Does this mean that environmental regulations do not have to be in conflict with these ideals?

It means the government has no authority to make regulations on business. But people do have the right to take you to court even without them, if they can prove that you've harmed them, endangered them, or damaged their property.

Okay, so you polluted my river, and I take you to court. The judge decides you are criminally liable for my kid's cancer and my kidney failure.

Does the judge just get to decide how much it's worth? Is it straight-up medical bills and no punitive damages, since that's all that's "measurable?" What if a different judge thinks it's worth more? Perhaps it's okay if the government issued some guidelines as to how much various forms of endangerment are worth, with regards to both financial damages and criminal sentencing?

Guidelines... what's another word for legally-binding guidelines? Oh yeah, regulations on business.

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

I believe juries recommend punative damages, but judges have the final say. It would be best if each situation were judged on a case-by-case basis. Someone whose lawn dies due to pollution obviously has less damages than someone whose children die.

Whether or not one judge would give more than another is irrelevant. Judges are given discretion and they should retain it. There should be no guidelines.

Also, regulations are not guidelines. They are laws. Guidelines are merely suggestions. The U.S. government is not given any authority to regulate business. It can regulate interstate commerce (buying and selling over state lines) but not what products a business may sell, where they can do business within a state, how many products they may manufacture, what safety features they must or must not include, etc.

OK. I understand that.

How does Libertarianism feel about limitations on the use of a property? For example, if a wealthy individual were able to buy a historic old building that is a national treasure, but in private hands, like Mount Vernon, should they be allowed to bulldoze it to put up a monument to Pauly Shore? Or can a libertarian government designate a building as "historic" or "protected" and limit what you can do with it?

It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.

Yes, if someone were to purchase Mount Vernon and wanted to bulldoze it to the ground to put up a Pauly Shore monument, they should be allowed to do so. Nobody else has any say in what they do with their own property...even when it's stupid.

What if I cannot afford to fight you in court? Very often it's almost impossible for individuals to launch a suit because a large business has the money to tie up procedings and outlast you. You would have to ban private legal representation and channel everything through the government, good luck.

If you can't fight in court on a legitimate case, you aren't trying very hard. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who would work on contingency or even pro-bono in a pollution case that killed kids or some other such thing.