Replies

I have to say, reading over the discussion in the last thread, that I agree with Annalex, especially with regard to real property. Let me open with a quotation from Frederic Bastiat.

So true is it that property is prior to law that it is recognized even among savages who do not have laws, or at least not written laws. When a savage has devoted his labor to constructing a hut, no one will dispute his possession or ownership of it. To be sure, another, stronger savage may chase him out of it, but not without angering and alarming the whole tribe. It is this very abuse of force which gives rise to association, to common agreement, to law, and which puts the public police force at the service of property. Hence, law is born of property, instead of property being born of law.
One may say that the principle of property is recognized even among animals. The swallow peacefully cares for its young in the nest that it has built by its own efforts.

Since we're discussing whether land can be property prior to the existence of government, lets take the example of an ordinary guy in a pre-civilized society. He builds a hut, as in Bastiat's example above, and plants some grain nearby. It seems fairly obvious that anyone taking the hut and crops from him by force is committing a crime. Isn't that the definition of ownership? He has a right to that land because no one may rightly take it from him. His ownership may be "temporary", but no more so than his ownership of anything else. In fact, it's longer lasting than his ownership of the grains he grows, which are eaten or bartered over the course of the next year. Mobility also seems to me to be a non-issue. By some of the arguments DD put forth, land holds up better than other forms of property. Jumping to modern times, people own cars for relatively short periods of time(I've been driving since I was 16, and have had two cars in that time; it would be one if I hadn't wrecked the first one, but it illustrates the point), but they are certainly movable. Cars are also registered with the government. I have a deed for my car.

I am gald you agree, although my take on natural rights is different from Bastiat. I don't think that the presence of a behavior in nature has anything to do with natural rights. Rights are natural when no legislation is necessary to prevent conflicts of rights. Thus, a right to homestead real property when there is "enough and as good" left for other potential homesteaders is a natural right; in conditions of scarcity the natural right is merely to establish competitive rules, which gives rise to a contractual right to claim unclaimed property according to the rules -- but not to claim it in absence of rules.

The rulemaking authority, even if needed, doesn't have to be government. Historically, that role was played by tradition, and professional associations.

Clearly, no rulemaking authority is needed to exchange property once acquired. A registry of deeds facilitates exchange but is not strictly necessary to have a rightful real property exchange.