Land ownership debate

[North Yakistan]

Yesterday myself and Dejanic got in an arguement on the Che thread about private land ownership and decided to move it to avoid hijacking the thread. I will be arguing from a Right anarchist position based on the non-Agression principal and homesteading. I assume Dejanic will argue some form of Marxism.

Let me start with a statement and a question.

My family jointly owns 280 Acres of timber and farmland. It's used only for hunting and recreation except for an area rented to our cousin for farming. I'd this exceptable? Is our renting of land somehow exploitive?

[Death Metal]

If you've obtained the rights to it legally, then it's yours to do with so long as you are not in violation of the laws of your jurisdiction.

So, probably, yes it is acceptable.

[Blazedtown]

Of course its acceptable. There is nothing wrong with owning any amount of land.

[Cetacea]

Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

[North Yakistan]

If you've obtained the rights to it legally, then it's yours to do with so long as you are not in violation of the laws of your jurisdiction.

So, probably, yes it is acceptable.

Well idk if Dejanic will show or not but to that I'd say as an anarcist that the law has no actual bearing on morality. What matters is if the trade of this land was voluntary, or gàined through the use of force. If the law says Jim can't buy Larrys land but Larry still sells to Jim for a agreed apon price that is not in any way violent or immoral.

[Blazedtown]

Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

I'm guessing his cousin has the right to do just that, being family and all. If its anything like where I'm from, that section his cousin farms is probably the only viable land for farming, so the rest of it is left the law its always been for family hunts.

[Dejanic]

Well you said yesterday your family are dirt poor yet happen to own 280 Acres of land, firstly I'd probably dispute that, it's pretty uncommon to be poor and yet coincidentally own almost 300 acres of land, especially if you and your family are financially comfortable enough to use that land for recreational activities such as "hunting" and literal "recreation".

If there is no production taking place on the land its self, then no workers are being exploited. Though I would say that 280 acres of farmable land being used purely for "hunting" and "recreation" as opposed to production Is incredibly inefficient.

[Sanguinea]

Socialists aren't opposed to personal property ownership if it was acquired without coercion, and seeing that your family uses it producively, and you do this producing yourselves. Not much if any problems with it from my perspective.

[Alcase]

Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

With a rifle and a "No Trespassing" sign.

[Blazedtown]

Well you said yesterday your family are dirt poor yet happen to own 280 Acres of land, firstly I'd probably dispute that, it's pretty uncommon to be poor and yet coincidentally own almost 300 acres of land, especially you and your family are financially comfortable enough to use that land for recreational activities such as "hunting" and literal "recreation".

If there is no production taking place on the land its self, then no workers are being exploited. Though I would say that 280 acres of farmable land being used purely for "hunting" and "recreation" as opposed to production Is incredibly inefficient.

If his family farmed at one point, its entirely possible the land has been in his family for a hundred years or more.

[North Yakistan]

Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

I aquired the land through voluntary exchange, as did the previous owner, back untill the land was first homesteaded. One can not Simply claim land (I claim this island for Spain!) you must mix your labor with the land, at which point it is yours. Once it is yours you may use itor sell it as you please. My family maintains the roads, fences, and buildings on the property and aquired it through mutually beneficial trade. It is ours.

If it was my cousin it wouldn't be a problem hes my cousin but an outsider I would ask to leave and then if necisary force to at gunpoint. The deer is what I would be most angered about. If he needs to hunt to live just ask and ill join you in hunting one.

[Death Metal]

If you've obtained the rights to it legally, then it's yours to do with so long as you are not in violation of the laws of your jurisdiction.

So, probably, yes it is acceptable.

Well idk if Dejanic will show or not but to that I'd say as an anarcist that the law has no actual bearing on morality.

And morality has no bearing on law.

Furthermore morality is inherently subjective anyway.

I say this as a political dadaist (that is, I reject all extreme ideologies as equally invalid and self-destructive; also unlike artistic dadaism there is no anti-capitalist bias).

[Pandeeria]

As long as you legally obtained it, and follow environmental and economic laws then you should be able to have said land.

[North Yakistan]

Well you said yesterday your family are dirt poor yet happen to own 280 Acres of land, firstly I'd probably dispute that, it's pretty uncommon to be poor and yet coincidentally own almost 300 acres of land, especially if you and your family are financially comfortable enough to use that land for recreational activities such as "hunting" and literal "recreation".

If there is no production taking place on the land its self, then no workers are being exploited. Though I would say that 280 acres of farmable land being used purely for "hunting" and "recreation" as opposed to production Is incredibly inefficient.

I am dirt poor, my reletives are not. And hunting is producing, Deer forms a considerable portion of my diet.

[North Yakistan]

Well you said yesterday your family are dirt poor yet happen to own 280 Acres of land, firstly I'd probably dispute that, it's pretty uncommon to be poor and yet coincidentally own almost 300 acres of land, especially you and your family are financially comfortable enough to use that land for recreational activities such as "hunting" and literal "recreation".

If there is no production taking place on the land its self, then no workers are being exploited. Though I would say that 280 acres of farmable land being used purely for "hunting" and "recreation" as opposed to production Is incredibly inefficient.

If his family farmed at one point, its entirely possible the land has been in his family for a hundred years or more.

It was aquired from other reletives who farmed it.

[North Yakistan]

Well idk if Dejanic will show or not but to that I'd say as an anarcist that the law has no actual bearing on morality.

And morality has no bearing on law.

Furthermore morality is inherently subjective anyway.

I say this as a political dadaist (that is, I reject all extreme ideologies as equally invalid and self-destructive; also unlike artistic dadaism there is no anti-capitalist bias).

So if morality is subjective then all laws are arbitrary. Other than the threat of violence what's the reason to follow them?

[Cetacea]

Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

I aquired the land through voluntary exchange, as did the previous owner, back untill the land was first homesteaded. One can not Simply claim land (I claim this island for Spain!) you must mix your labor with the land, at which point it is yours. Once it is yours you may use itor sell it as you please. My family maintains the roads, fences, and buildings on the property and aquired it through mutually beneficial trade. It is ours.

If it was my cousin it wouldn't be a problem hes my cousin but an outsider I would ask to leave and then if necisary force to at gunpoint. The deer is what I would be most angered about. If he needs to hunt to live just ask and ill join you in hunting one.

I agree entirely with this position so as the history of the land has been one of voluntary exchange and you are happy to share access on the basis of respect and shared labour then I see no problem there. Even your cousin 'renting' a portion can be intepreted as his contribution to the collective welfare of the land (ie your maintenance of fences and roading).

Nonetheless you did admit the point that enforcement of your rights against those who violate your expectations (ie hunt deer without permission) requires use of violence. In the end all claims to rights including rights of ownership require mutual respect enforced through threat of violence - I'm not opposed to that, it is what humans do...

With a rifle and a "No Trespassing" sign.

So if morality is subjective then all laws are arbitrary. Other than the threat of violence what's the reason to follow them?

There isn't one. Law is enforced through threat of violence (or at the very least by social exclusion). We follow laws either through fear or through a desire for social acceptability

[Dejanic]

If his family farmed at one point, its entirely possible the land has been in his family for a hundred years or more.

It was aquired from other reletives who farmed it.

Well the land your family own isn't easily to define, if it was many acres of land owned by a guy who had dozens of workers farming it, then obviously I'd support that land being commonly controlled by the workers themselves. Since however no surplus is being extracted in your family farm it isn't easy to discuss. Though personally I'd have the land farmed and used for more productive reasons (food, crops, etc, with the distribution of the goods produced being handled by the (theoretical) local workers council. Their certainly wouldn't be a small group of people owning land. Since your family are the ones who live on the land, they would have a chance to take part, as would anyone who lived in the area.

[Death Metal]

So if morality is subjective then all laws are arbitrary.

Apples and oranges.

Laws in a free society ideally exist to protect the citizens within. Unfortunately this is not always the case, but there is no need to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

[Divair2]

Seems fine to me.

[Blazedtown]

It was aquired from other reletives who farmed it.

Well the land your family own isn't easily to define, if it was many acres of land owned by a guy who had dozens of workers farming it, then obviously I'd support that land being commonly controlled by the workers themselves. Since however no surplus is being extracted in your family farm it isn't easy to discuss. Though personally I'd have the land farmed and used for more productive reasons (food, crops, etc, with the distribution of the goods produced being handled by the (theoretical) local workers council. Their certainly wouldn't be a small group of people owning land. Since your family are the ones who live on the land, they would have a chance to take part, as would anyone who lived in the area.

So you would have us tear up every acre of land that private land owners set aside in wild life production areas across the country and turn it into farm land? You realize that's part of what caused the dust bowl, right?

And you really expect him to let his neighbors tell him what he can and can't do with his property.

[North Yakistan]

It was aquired from other reletives who farmed it.

Well the land your family own isn't easily to define, if it was many acres of land owned by a guy who had dozens of workers farming it, then obviously I'd support that land being commonly controlled by the workers themselves. Since however no surplus is being extracted in your family farm it isn't easy to discuss. Though personally I'd have the land farmed and used for more productive reasons (food, crops, etc, with the distribution of the goods produced being handled by the (theoretical) local workers council. Their certainly wouldn't be a small group of people owning land. Since your family are the ones who live on the land, they would have a chance to take part, as would anyone who lived in the area.

Ok so now to the theoretical.

A man legitimately owns 500 Acres, and runs this as a family farm. In adition to his family he hires to local men as hired hands for an agreed apon salary. Then at the end of each year sells the crops to pay his employees and support his family. Is there anything you would object to here?

[Dejanic]

Well the land your family own isn't easily to define, if it was many acres of land owned by a guy who had dozens of workers farming it, then obviously I'd support that land being commonly controlled by the workers themselves. Since however no surplus is being extracted in your family farm it isn't easy to discuss. Though personally I'd have the land farmed and used for more productive reasons (food, crops, etc, with the distribution of the goods produced being handled by the (theoretical) local workers council. Their certainly wouldn't be a small group of people owning land. Since your family are the ones who live on the land, they would have a chance to take part, as would anyone who lived in the area.

So you would have us tear up every acre of land that private land owners set aside in wild life production areas across the country and turn it into farm land? You realize that's part of what caused the dust bowl, right?

I personally wouldn't, no. I'm sure some would though.

[North Yakistan]

So if morality is subjective then all laws are arbitrary.

Apples and oranges.

Laws in a free society ideally exist to protect the citizens within. Unfortunately this is not always the case, but there is no need to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

But what if the activity prohibited by a law is not one harmful to anyone but the criminal, ie the victimless crime of drug use.

[Blazedtown]

So you would have us tear up every acre of land that private land owners set aside in wild life production areas across the country and turn it into farm land? You realize that's part of what caused the dust bowl, right?

I personally wouldn't, no. I'm sure some would though.

Which in America's case, would result in a massive die off of wildlife across the country. When my Grandpa was in high school, if someone saw a deer it made the local paper. Now you don't go a week without someone hitting one with a car.