Well it would be a violation of the owner of the bulldozer rights if the Indians stepped foot on their land because the bulldozer owner has rights to that land.

So we can see by Nelsio's logic that the Europeans had every right to slaughter thousands of buffalo, fence in their migratory lands, push the Native Americas off the land, and then shoot them if they came back on the land. They are lucky we gave them reservations as a consolation prize. Thanks Nelsio I am glad you justified removing civilizations from their lands because they use a bow and arrow and not a hoe.

AKSpartan: You're welcome to characterize yourself as an AC who doesn't believe in homesteading, but to assert that homesteading as the basis of property rights is on the fringe of the (Rothbardian) conception of AC that is so popular here would be false. Or even to assert that it is anything other than central to how AC is typically understood, but that's neither here nor there.

Moreover, we're discussing Nielsio's views of homesteading and property rights in this thread. And I'm pretty sure he thinks it's a simple issue.

I would be interested in hearing from the ASists and statists how they determine property rights. MD, arent you for the allowance of using capital when the landlord is absent? I might be wrong and I forget the technical term.

And for the record homesteading is just as arbitrary as anything else, imo. The whole reason there is so much conflict over property (even outside of war and theft) is that there is no objective method to determine who should own what pieces of land. This is why I would be interested in hearing how non-ACists come to their conclusions of how to determine legitimate ownership of land.

I'm not reading this whole thread, but I just wanted to say that what was done to the native Americans was in no sense libertarian IMO. Hunter gatherers had prior easement on the land to, you know, hunt and gather and ****. Any transformation of the land that precludes this or exclusion of the native peoples from the exercise of their rightful access to and use of the land to exercise their prior right is a taking, and is not homesteading.

But hey, at least they got casinos out of the deal.

Sounds good to me.

Nielsio is the only one rejecting this line of reasoning at present, as far as I can tell.

Also, the whole point of ACism is supposed to be that it isn't arbitrary. Statism is full of wishy-washy pragmatism, might making right, ends justifying means.

Anarcho capitalism is a philosophy hewed out of RAW LOGIC by the finest white supremacist minds of our generation. First principles! Praxeological reasoning! AXIOMS!! There's nothing arbitrary or ambiguous about it, that's how we know it's better.

Seriously, AK, you and some other guys always pull this **** whenever one of the true believers starts edging down towards towards the free market in children, lifetime slavery contracts, etc. etc. That's fine, but you can't just be like "Stop yelling at Nielso for being wrong, I'M NOT WRONG." You can articulate your own view, but
A) Borodog will probably put you on ignore as a heretic
B) You're no longer an anarchocapitalist at that point

If you hunt or gather something, then you have produced (homesteaded) those things that you bring back with you. However, all the rest of nature that you have done literally nothing to, is not homesteaded. It is nature that is producing those things. This means that other people have just as much right as you to use the fruit of nature and produce something from it.

It is when you yourself become the producer that your claim is higher than that of someone else.


I do think you can gain ownership in wild groups of animals if you have a system of controlled hunting so that the population isn't wiped out. If then other people show up and want to hunt it, they have to join that association.

Those trees, that no one touches or allows to be touched, are what generates the hunting or the gathering. Those people know and accept that. Now here comes Nielsio, those trees are being under utilized, I can do better, and know better, so I will homestead them to barren land. Then after all that lumber is gone, he moves his sawmill to the next timber stand that is unproductive

That is what typically happens under a situation where land cannot be privately owned -> tragedy of the commons.

When land can be privately owned, then cultivation makes sense, because you know that in future you can have fruits from it, or you can sell the land and wish that it remain a high value.


Free Market Environmentalism (with Walter Block)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI

Conservation and Property Rights (by Murray N. Rothbard)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPy9j3vtKCs

Why? Seriously, are you just telling us what is righteous, or do you have any possible explanation to justify or explain why you feel this is righteous. All you have done so far is dictate your own noxious believes.

What if the groups of wild animals range over an ecosystem that spans a multitude of groups or nations? What if several of these groups and nations shepherd the group of animals and make sure they are not over hunted on their watch. Do any particular one of those groups or nations gain ownership of those animals? Does anyone?

Seriously, do you dudes take classes about turning everything into a false dichotomy. Why do you jump to property =EITHER= land privately owned, =OR= the commons. Dude just scroll up, you yourself already identified a third possibility of land use, outside of your noxious public/private sophistry ... Unowned Land...

Oops! Nice to have you playing however!

That would be a nice idea, except the land is merely there, its the resource the improver is only interested in. The side effects of the action, or the long term land use, is of no concern to that entrepreneur. Its not part of the initial calculation, with any long term benefit being attributed to someone elses actions. These are supposed to be logical rational thinkers, if a return can't be realized in the short term, the endeavor isn't practical.

This is all anyone does when arguing based on morality.

Morality loses the day once again.

Once you disregard morality and start thinking in terms of the maximization of the production of wealth, it all starts making sense.

People who are orders of magnitude better at making productive use from a piece of land (agriculturists) make agreements with each other to not destroy each other's production. If it takes displacing people who are orders of magnitude less productive with that piece of land (hunter gatherers), then that's what's going to happen.

The idea that hunter-gatherers make no productive use out of the land is simply wrong. The difference, however, is that they don't improve upon said piece of land and so their production is both extremely limited, and a zero-sum game. Capital accumulation is minimal if it exists at all.

There's no economic reason to make any such peacekeeping agreements with someone like that. What's more, they won't want to make any such agreements either. Being that their production is a zero-sum game, they will treat any neighbors as mortal enemies, and consider exterminating them as a great +EV move, even if they lose a bunch of their own in the battle/war.

that's sort of half the point with ACism, the size of the states makes all the difference. are you living in a house with your family which you exclude from the rest of society? then you to sir are a state.
we don't? land ownership or even property rights in general is a complex issue. there is no single objective Right Answer. i think lots of people would be interested if you had a better theory then state ownership or say homesteading though.

I'm not sure Neils is arguing for a situation where someone could simply bulldoze the land, although he hasn't addressed this issue given multiple opportunities to do so.

Seems like he's trying to establish that merely subsisting off of a piece of land should not give you the right to prevent others from doing the same, rather than claiming he can simply take the land for his own purposes (ala the colonists).

Like much of ACism I actually like the idea in theory but dislike it when applied to the real world. The reason for this is the two assumptions that i've highlighted (infinite plucking opportunity must exist, and your activities must not interfere with my activities) do not translate well to real life.

Also, over time a hunter gatherer will become more familiar with his hunting grounds, and will therefore become more productive relative to a hunter of equal skill that has just arrived. Niels' definition of productivity seems not to account for this.

What if my family rents? How about at work where I have to rent my life for wages?

I thought the whole point of ACism is that it is "objective". The "rights" of property owners over others are THE SIMPLE AND SINGLE universal answer to all existense. It all starts with "you own your own body", whatever that nonsense line is supposed to mean. Isn't it an axiom based morality, with only one pure "axiom" for goodness sake! (as a math major, this whole single "axiom" line will never cease to amuse me: ZOMG LOL 4LIFE).

And whats with the either/or thinking with you dudes... State ownership -vs- Homesteading... WOW! Anyway I have been blogging about a better theory than either than those two turds all along... except it's not a "theory" at all, it's just (real world) anarchism.

again ur wrong

and not a very nice person

yes you are

Its a classic flaw of ACism where the monetary value of the morally correct thing is difficult to judge and/or express. If money is the ultimate judge of everything there will obviously be huge flaws to the system. Its also part of the reason i only refer to it as a fairytale system - it rarely if ever considers the history of human nature. Because at their heart they default to the position that if something happened under "a state" it wouldnt necessarily happen under "not a state".

The funny thing is one of the best examples of ACism they often use is the "wild west". With little to no central interference early frontier living wasnt far from the concept of ACism. Of course the fact there was wholesale slaughter and theft of land of and from less advanced cultures is neither here nor there when it comes to this thread

this is great, we now have an AC trolling containment thread. Now we can have more productive conversation on the rest of the board

Justification, which is what this thread is all about, doesn't make sense when you disregard morality. This thead isn't about "why did this happen?".

rent is a payment for those people that built and took care of that house before your family lived there. not everyone has the capital to buy a house.

what if you live in your seaside house, go on vacation and meanwhile decide to rent your house out? not everyone have the capital needed to buy a house, so they rent. what is your solution?? is it ok if i live in your house if i can't afford one on my own?

if you are unemployed and are in search of a job i don't see the big difference in being dependant on capitalist overlords or a bunch of workers owning property. there are large worker cooperations today, they exist as long as they act in a way that is consistent with meeting consumer demand. consumer by and large do not care much if the companies that produces their stuff are run by workers or owned by capitalists.

if thats the case then i am not an anarcho-capitalist. i do think that self-ownership NAP homesteading libertarianism etc are reasonable guidelines to live your life by but i don't think they can be grounded objectively outside of a sense of companionship and empathy for my fellow man. "capitalism" is simply what i believe people would choose absent the state.

i'm providing theories for how people may choose to solve property rights disputes that will arise in a stateless society, you on the other hand has done nothing but scream anarcho-capitalism is not real world anarchism.

I don't know what question you're seeking an answer to. Morality is a culty belief system designed to control the behavior of humans who are (presumably) dumber than the person(s) designing the system, so much so that they don't really understand the system or the reasons for each rule (otherwise there'd be no reason to create it in the first place), the followers simply follow "because X says so".

X being the preacher/cult leader, God, or morality itself.

To be seeking answers about morality and to try to reason your way through them is getting entangled in something that wasn't meant for that purpose to begin with. Just look at what happens everytime someone starts a discussion about morality.

That's the most valid statement in the thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=317

care to respond to that?

Keep in mind that Native Americans needed a lot of space to hunt and open grassland for the buffalos to migrate. Also they considered some places holy.

So what if I take that tree and tie a ribbon around it? Carve "Thog Ulga" in the side? Lop off some dead branches? Poop out some apple seeds so I get more trees? Kill only the weakest buffalo to foster a stronger herd?