Homestead Principle Information
The homestead principle in law is the concept that one can gain ownership of a natural thing that currently has no owner by using it or building something out of it. Along with self-ownership, the right to homestead is one of the foundations of deontological libertarianism.[1]
Contents |
Homesteading laws by governments
In the 19th century, a number of governments formalized the homestead principle by passing laws that would grant property of land plots of certain standardized size to people who would settle on it and "improve" it in certain ways (typically, built their residence and started to farm at least a certain fraction of the land). Typically, such laws would apply to territories recently taken from its indigenous inhabitants, and which the state would want to have populated by farmers. Examples:
- United States: Homestead Act (1862)
- Canada: Dominion Lands Act (1872)
- Australia: Crown Lands Acts (1861)
Libertarian ethics
The homestead principle (or original appropriation) is part of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist ethics. The homestead principle is a theory of how a fresh, or new, resource becomes legitimate property.
Fencing vs mixing labor
Linda and Morris Tannehill opine in The Market for Liberty that physically claiming the land (e.g. by fencing it in or prominently staking it out) should be enough to obtain good title:
An old and much respected theory holds that for a man to come into possession of a previously unowned value it is necessary for him to "mix his labor with the land" to make it his own. But this theory runs into difficulties when one attempts to explain what is meant by "mixing labor with land." Just how much labor is required, and of what sort? If a man digs a large hole in his land and then fills it up again, can he be said to have mixed his labor with the land? Or is it necessary to effect a somewhat permanent change in the land? If so, how permanent?...Or is it necessary to effect some improvement in the economic value of the land? If so, how much and how soon?...Would a man lose title to his land if he had to wait ten months for a railroad line to be built before he could improve the land?...And what of the naturalist who wanted to keep his land exactly as it was in its wild state to study its ecology?...[M]ixing one's labor with the land is too ill-defined a concept and too arbitrary a requirement to serve as a criterion of ownership.[2]
Absentee ownership vs possession
There is not a requirement that a resource be in regular use for the proprietor retain the right to control, but simply that it has been transformed once through labor. Since property rights entail the right of the owner to transfer ownership to someone else or discard it, the homestead principle does not require that a purchaser, giftee, or finder mix his labor with the land in order to own it. Thus, "absentee ownership" and rent is permitted.
This contrasts with the doctrine of possession, in Proudon's mutualism, where there is not the right to own a resource, but the right to "possess," by which is meant the right to use or occupy. Under that doctrine, the right to control the resource ceases when it is not in use, and transfer of control does not transfer the right of control except while the receiver continues to use or occupy it. Therefore, rent is not seen as legitimate.
The principle Possession as nine-tenths of the law also deals with the problem of titles vs possession.
Consistency with non-aggression principle
Together with the principle of self-ownership, the homestead principle forms the basis of libertarian philosophy. The homestead principle is seen by libertarians as consistent with their opposition to initiatory coercion, since only land that is unowned can be taken. If something is unowned, there is no one the original appropriator is initiating coercion against. And, they do not think mere claim creates ownership.
Murray Rothbard says (in Justice and Property Rights): "All existing property titles may be considered just under the homestead principle, provided
- (a) that there may never be any property in people;
- (b) that the existing property owner did not himself steal the property; and particularly
- (c) that any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property".
See also
References
- ^ Rothbard, Murray. "Property and Exchange". For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. pp. 39.
- ^ Tannehill, Linda and Morris. The Market for Liberty. pp. 57–58.
External links
Categories: Property law | Libertarian theory | Anarchist theory | Ethics
|