←back to thread

291 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.297s | source
Show context
mothballed ◴[] No.45291409[source]
Property rights as conceived by Adam smith, John Locke, and even the most ruthless anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard does not acknowledge the right of ownership of land from merely seeing it and declaring everyone else is blocked from accessing the next place. In all such systems, ownership is first derived from developing or homesteading the land.

People that own undeveloped land purely for the reason of blocking someone else do not have any place in the capitalist system. It is nice someone is working on undoing that, through the mechanisms they have available.

replies(3): >>45291523 #>>45291601 #>>45292320 #
whatever1 ◴[] No.45291523[source]
If you did not fight for it you don’t have ownership rights. The state owns the land. The rest of us are mere users of it.

For the many downvoters do this thought experiment: the neighbor country attacks and takes over your country. What is your ownership title worth? Exactly 0. Hence it was not yours to begin with.

replies(2): >>45292030 #>>45293014 #
AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.45292030[source]
For the N years between now and the neighbor country conquering, the title is worth the value I can get from the legal rights it gives me within the legal system of my country. That's more than zero, even if it doesn't last forever.
replies(1): >>45292238 #
1. whatever1 ◴[] No.45292238[source]
You can bet on a price but it’s not yours. Unless the state defends it and agrees that the piece of paper you call title is binding.

To the conqueror your paper means nothing.