# Think Tank > History >  Gen. George Washington; the Original One Percenter?

## Origanalist

VENICE, Pa. -- To the 13 families living in this Western Pennsylvania village, Gen. George Washington was an arrogant, elite Virginian who dared to claim ownership of the land where they had built log cabins, grown crops and conducted their lives for nearly 15 years.

To them, he was the first true 1-percenter, local historian Clayton Kilgore said, recalling Occupy protesters description of wealthy Americans.

Washington represented everything they despised, according to Kilgore.

These were Scotsmen who identified with the Covenanters, those Gaelic warriors who opposed King Charles tax policies, he said. They held anything associated with government in utter contempt. Based on the standards of that time, when great land ownership meant great wealth, Washington indeed was very rich  quite possibly the wealthiest man in the fledgling nation.

He owned nearly 60,000 acres, spread out between Western Pennsylvania and present-day West Virginia. This particular tract contained approximately 3,000 acres given to him by the British for his French and Indian War service.

Of all things dear to him, Washington loved his youthful craft as a surveyor and its role in helping him to evolve into a gentleman landowner.

You can imagine his surprise, in the late summer of 1784, when he rode out to survey his property and found squatters permanently settled on the land.

Washington feared the domino effect they would have, explained Kilgore, who runs the David Bradford House in nearby Washington, Pa.

He envisioned this land as critical to the new nation, with investors building roads and canals, and commerce flourishing with trade, crops and development, Kilgore said.

Instead, he met a band of hardheaded Scots-Irish Presbyterians, led by David Reed, who had no intention of leaving his land. They had built a church, homes and lives here, and looked down their noses at this elite truant-landlord.

He really didnt care much for the rabble, Kilgore said. He thought they had no regard for his grueling time spent commanding the Revolutionary War, which kept him away from his lands, and he was right  they thought very little of him.

What ensued was a verbal showdown between Washington and the squatters in the gristmill that once stood in the village. Neither party would back down.

Washington offered them choices: Pay back rent, lease the property for 999 years, or leave.

They said no to all three options.

So much for negotiating with those who have no claim to your property in the first place.

The situation back then really does remind one of todays Occupy movement, Kilgore agreed. Washington was about as popular among those squatters as a modern-day Wall Street banker is among todays Occupy crowd, he said.

Eventually, the two sides met again; the squatters agreed  without conceding Washingtons ownership  to buy the land from him. Yet the price Washington demanded was too steep for them; they refused to pay  and colorfully rejected his claim of ownership.

No wonder that, years later, Washington sent 13,000 troops to quell fewer than 500 angry farmers, when this same breed of Scotsmen rebelled over a federal excise tax levied on whiskey.

Washington, by then president, wanted to make sure they got the message, said Kilgore, official historian at the home built in 1762 by whiskey rebel Bradford.

Washingtons land dispute eventually went before Pennsylvanias Supreme Court. The case dragged on for two years before he finally won.

He generously offered to allow the 13 squatter families to remain on their plantations without paying back rent, but insisted they pay going forward.

They would have none of it and moved on, Kilgore said.

Along state Route 980, all that is left of this confrontation is a historical marker badly in need of repair.

On that spot, an enterprising Virginia gentleman-general foresaw all the potential of this country on its Western frontier, not far from the rivers that converge into the mighty Ohio, and fought to keep what rightfully was his.

http://townhall.com/columnists/salen...ter/page/full/

----------


## jmdrake

So is Washington a hero of liberty for standing up for property right to land granted to him by the King of England (who really had no right to it) or a villain for enforcing a federal tax?

----------


## Origanalist

//

----------


## Aratus

he truly married up socially when marrying widderrr martha,
so if he offered them all a 999 year lease that was open to 
they and their descendants, in order to solidify his newly
found gentry~ish lord of the manner status, keep in mind
that washington's ancestors were peasant farmers on the
great estate of the house of spencer and are buried in that
small village church oh so near to where lady diana is buried.
had they taken him up on the lease terms which if hopefully
to their favor over time, one can wonder about the sublime
ironies. its not that he wasn't brave during the french & indian
war or was all over one of the incidents that triggered it, its
that he did have a few flaws and was not a young god, always.

----------


## Mini-Me

If you look at this objectively, Washington's claim to this land was specious in the first place.  It was granted to him by a government of all entities, which never properly homesteaded it.  On top of that, the government in question was the same government that was declared illegitimate by the Declaration of Independence in the first place.  Furthermore, it was a ludicrous amount of unused, unhomesteaded land that many by all rights considered abandoned at the very least.  In all truth, the "rabble" probably never knew it was "owned" in the first place before they actually DID homestead it by even the most restrictive definition of the term:  They put the sweat of their brow into building homes and a church upon it.  They actually made it theirs unlike the great surveyor George Washington, so it's no wonder they considered their claim stronger.  Frankly, I would too.

If anyone in this story was a shameless thief, it was Washington.  That doesn't mean I'd judge him as harshly as I'd judge most "nobles" who arbitrarily claim the earth as their own:  I'm sure he felt in his heart that the land was his and rightfully earned, and I'm sure he felt that he was being patient and reasonable with the people living on it.  That still doesn't mean he was in the right, and his conduct here perfectly exemplifies why leftists quote Proudhon saying, "Property is theft."  This has poisoned the left's view of individual property ownership, and if we want to have any hope of changing that, we need to make the effort to properly differentiate legitimately acquired property from ill-gotten property and arbitrary claims.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you look at this objectively, Washington's claim to this land was specious in the first place.  It was granted to him by a government of all entities, which never properly homesteaded it.  On top of that, the government in question was the same government that was declared illegitimate by the Declaration of Independence in the first place.  Furthermore, it was a ludicrous amount of unused, unhomesteaded land that many by all rights considered abandoned at the very least.  In all truth, the "rabble" probably never knew it was "owned" in the first place before they actually DID homestead it by even the most restrictive definition of the term:  They put the sweat of their brow into building homes and a church upon it.  They actually made it theirs unlike the great surveyor George Washington, so it's no wonder they considered their claim stronger.  Frankly, I would too.
> 
> If anyone in this story was a shameless thief, it was Washington.  That doesn't mean I'd judge him as harshly as I'd judge most "nobles" who arbitrarily claim the earth as their own:  I'm sure he felt in his heart that the land was his and rightfully earned, and I'm sure he felt that he was being patient and reasonable with the people living on it.  That still doesn't mean he was in the right.


Agreed.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

Who cares?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Who cares?


The article was written, and it's interesting, so what's so wrong about people responding to it?

Anyway, all this reminds me a bit of this video, especially at 1:40 and 2:45:

----------


## oyarde

The Whiskey Rebellion is little known and hard to defend the actions of the Govt ...

----------


## PierzStyx

> If you look at this objectively, Washington's claim to this land was specious in the first place.  It was granted to him by a government of all entities, which never properly homesteaded it.  On top of that, the government in question was the same government that was declared illegitimate by the Declaration of Independence in the first place.  Furthermore, it was a ludicrous amount of unused, unhomesteaded land that many by all rights considered abandoned at the very least.  In all truth, the "rabble" probably never knew it was "owned" in the first place before they actually DID homestead it by even the most restrictive definition of the term:  They put the sweat of their brow into building homes and a church upon it.  They actually made it theirs unlike the great surveyor George Washington, so it's no wonder they considered their claim stronger.  Frankly, I would too.
> 
> If anyone in this story was a shameless thief, it was Washington.  That doesn't mean I'd judge him as harshly as I'd judge most "nobles" who arbitrarily claim the earth as their own:  I'm sure he felt in his heart that the land was his and rightfully earned, and I'm sure he felt that he was being patient and reasonable with the people living on it.  That still doesn't mean he was in the right, and his conduct here perfectly exemplifies why leftists quote Proudhon saying, "Property is theft."  This has poisoned the left's view of individual property ownership, and if we want to have any hope of changing that, we need to make the effort to properly differentiate legitimately acquired property from ill-gotten property and arbitrary claims.


Bull. Washington had the rightful title of the land. In his day and age that was properly acquired property. And in any case his claim was there first, to unclaimed land, and therefore the legitimate one. He was protecting his property rights. They were trespassers and had no right to be on his land without his permission. That he offered them options that allowed them to stay on his land at all is an act of kindness that was not necessary. Eventually he even allowed them to stay and pay rent going forward, forgiving their debt for violating his property rights in the past. 

That he owned the land, independent of the King is of no doubt. That is was still virgin is irrelevant. You don't have the rights to another man's property just because he isn't using it. If anyone was stealing, it was the group of squatters.

----------


## oyarde

I mean after all , who wants a new tax , tax collecters ??

----------


## oyarde

Gotta love , though , how they called Pittsburgh , Sodom

----------


## Mini-Me

> Bull. Washington had the rightful title of the land. In his day and age that was properly acquired property. And in any case his claim was there first, to unclaimed land, and therefore the legitimate one. He was protecting his property rights. They were trespassers and had no right to be on his land without his permission. That he offered them options that allowed them to stay on his land at all is an act of kindness that was not necessary. Eventually he even allowed them to stay and pay rent going forward, forgiving their debt for violating his property rights in the past. 
> 
> That he owned the land, independent of the King is of no doubt. That is was still virgin is irrelevant. You don't have the rights to another man's property just because he isn't using it. If anyone was stealing, it was the group of squatters.


Explain exactly how he properly homesteaded it.  Did he even fence it in (the absolute bare minimum requirement for homesteading, which goes contested) or make his mark in any way whatsoever besides some arbitrary claim from thousands of miles away?  I don't care if a title from the kind was *considered* properly acquired property back in the day:  Slaves were considered properly acquired property too, but that doesn't make it true.

Abandonment is also just as critical of a principle as homesteading when it comes to property as well, and disregarding it in your conception of property leads to a warped perspective that deeply undermines the purpose of property actually belonging to people.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The Whiskey Rebellion is little known and hard to defend the actions of the Govt ...


Not hard at all. The rebels took arms in violence assaulting people who came to collect legal taxes. The government didn't respond with force until the rebels had used physical violence against peaceful, fellow citizens. Its the non-aggression principle to the letter, you aren't justified in using violence unless someone is using violence against you. The rebels weren't just refusing to pay taxes and the government snet an army after them. They had assaulted people and threatened the lives of others. Force was justified. But even that never happened as the army showed up and suddenly the rebels were like, "Oh, yeah. We're sorry," and stopped their bullcrap and no one was harmed.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Explain exactly how he properly homesteaded it.  Did he even fence it in or make his mark in any way whatsoever besides some arbitrary claim from thousands of miles away?  I don't care if a title from the kind was *considered* properly acquired property back in the day:  Slaves were considered properly acquired property too, but that doesn't make it true.


So a fence is what makes something yours? Silly me I though it was having the proper and legal _deed of ownership_ as well as the original claim. And it was a deed obviously recognized by the post-Revolutionary governments as well. So it isn't just relying on some king's authority. That it was undeveloped is irrelevant. Virgin land doesn't become "common property" for everyone to squat on and take simply because it has trees on it. Do your rights to your property cease just because there is distance involved? Well don't ever travel then. Otherwise you might come home and find someone else has taken over your house since you were thousands of miles away and so it stopped being yours for some magical reason.

----------


## Mini-Me

> So a fence is what makes something yours? Silly me I though it was having the proper and legal _deed of ownership_ as well as the original claim. That it was undeveloped is irrelevant. Do your rights to your property cease just because there is distance involved? Well don't ever travel then. Otherwise you might come home and find someone else has taken over your house since you were thousands of miles away and so it stopped being yours for some magical reason.


You seem to be taking a legalistic view here.  Where do you believe rights come from?

*Homesteading* is what transforms unowned property into owned property.  Without homesteading, there is no legitimate ownership.  It's the reason I cannot arbitrarily claim to exclusively own all the land in Antarctica (or Mars) by pointing at it on a map, and it's the reason why anyone at all interested in liberty should laugh at any government deeds/titles issued on such grounds.  Tell me, did Washington ever homestead the property in any way whatsoever, by way of the homestead principle?  This is a critical foundational principle of natural rights, and it's the only way to justify individual property as anything other than an arbitrary construct of the state.  As such, a decree from a king cannot skirt it and substitute for it, unless you implicitly believe in the dominion of the state...but that would make you a true statist through and through.

It's easy to claim small bits of unowned property, because you can pick it up, take it with you, and bring it into your home.  At that point, it's pretty clear you've made it yours.  Land ownership is a lot more subtle:  You cannot pick it up and take it with you, and it's too scarce and precious a resource to permit a spurious claim from someone saying they and they alone own all of [insert ridiculously large unsettled territory here] for instance.  A world where such absurd claims are upheld is not a world of free men and women but a world of virtually permanent lords and serfs without moral justification besides "I called shotgun on owning absolutely everything first."  I shouldn't have to point out that it's the same world of abject injustice that led to reactionary and dangerous ideas like communism.

As a result, fencing property in is the most LAX standard that libertarians (or others who derive justice from natural rights) view as anything close to legitimate.  In the past, only "mixing your labor with the land" was considered homesteading, but this philosophical view was loosened to allow for a mere fence in response to arguments that the original conception was incompatible with owned virgin land (e.g. a nature preserve).  However, fencing has its own problems (it's too lax and doesn't fully appreciate the scarcity of land).  If there's any objective truth to the matter, the truth is either somewhere between the two or involves the abandonment principle (and "possession is nine tenths of the law") being interpreted similarly loosely.  (If there's NOT any objective truth to the matter, then pretty much the only rational way of conceptualizing homesteading and abandonment would be to construct them in such terms that theoretically maximize productive and efficient use of land.)

If Washington did not homestead the land by any sane definition of homesteading, his only claim to it is that it was given to him by a king thousands of miles away, who himself never owned it.  The deed/title is nothing more than government recognition of ownership, not a moral claim in and of itself, and such recognition may or may not line up with who possesses the real moral claim over the land.





> Not hard at all. The rebels took arms in violence assaulting people who came to collect legal taxes. The government didn't respond with force until the rebels had used physical violence against peaceful, fellow citizens. Its the non-aggression principle to the letter, you aren't justified in using violence unless someone is using violence against you. The rebels weren't just refusing to pay taxes and the government snet an army after them. They had assaulted people and threatened the lives of others. Force was justified. But even that never happened as the army showed up and suddenly the rebels were like, "Oh, yeah. We're sorry," and stopped their bullcrap and no one was harmed.


LOL.  "Legal taxes" or not, all taxes are still extortion backed by violence as defined by the NAP, so you cannot say that defending yourself against such extortion is a violation of the NAP.  You can say their actions violated the government's law (even a Constitutional law), but saying they were acting in aggression by libertarian standards is just rich.

----------


## oyarde

One thing I find interesting , is when they went to the volunteer militia from the four states , for the 13,000 , they could not get enough and used a draft , not very popular ... Then there is the state judges decisions on killing of unarmed civilians as "accident " from events on or around 9/11 - 9/29 , 1794 .... then the Govt's zealous efforts to pursue High Treason charges .....

----------


## oyarde

> Not hard at all. The rebels took arms in violence assaulting people who came to collect legal taxes. The government didn't respond with force until the rebels had used physical violence against peaceful, fellow citizens. Its the non-aggression principle to the letter, you aren't justified in using violence unless someone is using violence against you. The rebels weren't just refusing to pay taxes and the government snet an army after them. They had assaulted people and threatened the lives of others. Force was justified. But even that never happened as the army showed up and suddenly the rebels were like, "Oh, yeah. We're sorry," and stopped their bullcrap and no one was harmed.


 If I was some backwoods Scotsmen on the lands of Western Pennsylvania in the 1700's, I likely would have percieved the tax as theft and aggression and an attack on my family.....

----------


## PierzStyx

> You seem to be taking a legalistic view here.  Where do you believe rights come from?
> 
> 
> LOL.  "Legal taxes" or not, all taxes are still extortion backed by violence as defined by the NAP, so you cannot say that defending yourself against such extortion is a violation of the NAP.  You can say their actions violated the government's law (even a Constitutional law), but saying they were acting in aggression by libertarian standards is just rich.


Legal ownership is all that matters. It is what is important in protecting rights and keeping peace. Ownership is not defined by who lives there. Otherwise the whole process of renting falls apart. Ownership is defined by who has the legal and moral claim to the land. Washington clearly does. His claim is older and more defined. Again, people just can't seize someone else's property because it is undeveloped. If you have the deed, it is yours. For someone without the deed of ownership to move it without permission and seize that land is a violation of Washington's property rights. 

As for the NAP, you are incorrect. Taxes are extortion backed by violence according to one form of libertarianism. Not even all forms of libertarianism agrees with you on that fact. The Non-Aggression Principle is simply that you are not justified in using force against someone unless they first use force against you. During the whiskey rebellion soldiers were not sent out to use force to collect taxes, they were sent out to quell a rebellion that was using physical force against peaceful private citizens as well as government tax collectors. The rebels used force first against those who had not used force against them. It was the equivalent of if I showed up at your house saying you owe me money, you pulling a gun and chasing me off your property, and then proceeding to shoot at your neighbor who just happened to be standing on their lawn when this happened.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If I was some backwoods Scotsmen on the lands of Western Pennsylvania in the 1700's, I likely would have percieved the tax as theft and aggression and an attack on my family.....


What you perceive  is irrelevant to the facts. and no you probably wouldn't have. They weren't protesting ALL taxes, only the one they didn't like, the one that made it harder to get drunk.

----------


## oyarde

> What you perceive  is irrelevant to the facts. and no you probably wouldn't have. They weren't protesting ALL taxes, only the one they didn't like, the one that made it harder to get drunk.


 Well , it was the first tax on a domestic product . These peoples grew corn , excess corn was distilled into whiskey , this was the only item they had that could be sold for hard money . thus , the only income they had . Therefore , blatant stealing from the poor . The wealthy politicians knew how unpopular taxes where , so sought this one as the least objectionable by others , these people , for all intents and purposes were being singled out for tax , which , in itself is most questionable ... but supported by all the nutjob sin tax people , original moral police of the US, NICE FOR THEM, THEY ARE TAX EXEMPT...

----------


## Mini-Me

> Legal ownership is all that matters. It is what is important in protecting rights and keeping peace. Ownership is not defined by who lives there. Otherwise the whole process of renting falls apart. Ownership is defined by who has the legal and moral claim to the land. Washington clearly does. His claim is older and more defined. Again, people just can't seize someone else's property because it is undeveloped. If you have the deed, it is yours. For someone without the deed of ownership to move it without permission and seize that land is a violation of Washington's property rights.


Okay, so you adhere to a peculiar form of legalism convenient to you rather than any coherent philosophical understanding of natural rights...just great.

The "deed" was based on nothing but an arbitrary claim of the state.  This is incompatible with liberty.  Even viewed in the most charitable possible light, it starts the world off with an absurdly skewed balance of land ownership based on no justification but absolute and unquestioned state power, and then says, "Okay, NOW you lords and serfs play by the rules of individual rights and strict property ownership."  It's bull, and it has absolutely no philosophical grounding in libertarian principles or classical liberalism.




> As for the NAP, you are incorrect. Taxes are extortion backed by violence according to one form of libertarianism. Not even all forms of libertarianism agrees with you on that fact. The Non-Aggression Principle is simply that you are not justified in using force against someone unless they first use force against you. During the whiskey rebellion soldiers were not sent out to use force to collect taxes, they were sent out to quell a rebellion that was using physical force against peaceful private citizens as well as government tax collectors. The rebels used force first against those who had not used force against them. It was the equivalent of if I showed up at your house saying you owe me money, you pulling a gun and chasing me off your property, and then proceeding to shoot at your neighbor who just happened to be standing on their lawn when this happened.


If the rebels were indeed using physical force against peaceful private citizens, then I agree with you that they were acting in violation of the NAP.  If they simply chased off the tax collector, they were not:  If you showed up on my property and demanded I pay you the money I owe you, I'd chase you away too, unless you were so overwhelmingly powerful (like the government) that resistance would mean being kidnapped and thrown into a cage.  After all, I never agreed to a contract with you in the first place.  (Actually, I'd just slam my door, but I'd chase you away if you tried to collect the money I don't owe you by force.)

----------


## anaconda

He also threw Benedict Arnold under the bus when pressured by the governor of PA.

----------


## Origanalist

> Okay, so you adhere to a peculiar form of legalism convenient to you rather than any coherent philosophical understanding of natural rights...just great.


Morally right or not, is this not the system we have been operating under? And the system George Washington was operating under?

Change the system before you call someone immoral, it is immature to expect people to operate under a system that is not in existence where they are.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Morally right or not, is this not the system we have been operating under? And the system George Washington was operating under?
> 
> Change the system before you call someone immoral, it is immature to expect people to operate under a system that is not in existence where they are.


Operating under the system is one thing:  George Washington was operating under the system he understood, and he did so with no real malice, which is why I don't judge him harshly.  However, if we're going to have a moral discussion about legitimate land ownership according to libertarian principles and natural rights (homesteading), then no, he was not the legitimate owner.

I mean, you could say the same thing about our current system:  The government steals people's land through eminent domain and gives it to corporations all the time.  It's part of the system, and it's totally legal, but would you become an apologist for it on moral grounds?

----------


## oyarde

> What you perceive  is irrelevant to the facts. and no you probably wouldn't have. They weren't protesting ALL taxes, only the one they didn't like, the one that made it harder to get drunk.


 I suspect I would have most likely indeed percieved it as theft from my family....

----------


## Origanalist

> Operating under the a system is one thing:  George Washington was operating under the system he understood, which is why I don't judge him harshly.  However, if we're going to have a moral discussion about legitimate land ownership according to libertarian principles and natural rights (homesteading), then no, he was not the legitimate owner.


Fair enough.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not hard at all. The rebels took arms in violence assaulting people who came to collect legal taxes. The government didn't respond with force until the rebels had used physical violence against peaceful, fellow citizens. Its the non-aggression principle to the letter, you aren't justified in using violence unless someone is using violence against you. The rebels weren't just refusing to pay taxes and the government snet an army after them. They had assaulted people and threatened the lives of others. Force was justified. But even that never happened as the army showed up and suddenly the rebels were like, "Oh, yeah. We're sorry," and stopped their bullcrap and no one was harmed.


So then you agree with Lincoln invading the south?  After all the rebels fired on Ft. Sumter.  Note I'm not saying Lincoln was right or wrong.  Just that you can't attack Lincoln's actions and defend Washington's as many here at RPF often do.

----------


## oyarde

So , basically, the plan was to steal from the poor illiterate corn farmer by taxing the product of his excess to settle bonds and pay off the debt , because this was the only theft the public would go for....

----------


## jmdrake

> He also threw Benedict Arnold under the bus when pressured by the governor of PA.


I'm unfamiliar with this story.  What happened?

----------


## oyarde

I wonder what the wages for  Revenue Supv and Revenue inspector for the districts were in 1791 ?

----------


## Origanalist

> I wonder what the wages for  Revenue Supv and Revenue inspector for the districts were in 1791 ?


A barrel of whisky?

----------


## Origanalist

> Operating under the system is one thing:  George Washington was operating under the system he understood, and he did so with no real malice, which is why I don't judge him harshly.  However, if we're going to have a moral discussion about legitimate land ownership according to libertarian principles and natural rights (homesteading), then no, he was not the legitimate owner.
> 
> I mean, you could say the same thing about our current system:  The government steals people's land through eminent domain and gives it to corporations all the time.  It's part of the system, and it's totally legal, but would you become an apologist for it on moral grounds?


After edit; the answer to your question is no.

----------


## oyarde

> What you perceive  is irrelevant to the facts. and no you probably wouldn't have. They weren't protesting ALL taxes, only the one they didn't like, the one that made it harder to get drunk.


Most likely , I would have sat down at the dinner table after dinner , one night , had a cup of coffee , looked at my wife and kids and quietly made a decision of , Do I still have the ability to clear more land with an axe ? moving further West , to avoid the thieving $#@!s , or am I just too tired and worn out ? , leading to middle of the night guerilla war against the thieves .....

----------


## oyarde

The Whiskey tax was the start of many , many bad things . Precedent for Tobacco tax, Wine Tax , Beer tax etc etc ....... It was the equivelent in its time of , today , The FedGovt announcing a tax on food stamps and farm stand sales , but everyone else is exempt ....

----------


## Mini-Me

> After edit; the answer to your question is no.


Oh, I know you wouldn't.   I figured when you posted that you and I were looking at the same thing from different perspectives and placing our emphasis differently...thinking on "different wavelengths" so to speak.  PierzStyx's legalist leanings seem a lot stronger and more intrinsic to his thought process though, to the point where I'm having trouble reconciling them with any philosophically consistent conception of individual rights.

----------


## anaconda

> I'm unfamiliar with this story.  What happened?


Arnold was placed in charge of Philadelphia after it was re-taken. Arnold was apparently taking inventory from the locals (apparently a routine occurrence) but the PA governor was pissed and on a mission to fight back against the federal military types. He was going to refuse Washington supplies from PA unless he reprimanded Arnold (who had survived a military review on corruption charges). This was hard for Washington because Arnold had been a brilliant and loyal officer. But GW compromised and issued the reprimand. This was apparently the last indignity that Arnold could bare, before going over to the British. Or something like that...

I'm no history buff. Just saw this recently on streaming Netflix (I think it's episode 7 that covers this particular incident)

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Th...?trkid=2734348

----------


## oyarde

I think the original whiskey tax was repealed in 1800 , when the other party came to power . I also , guarantee the govt cost of the enforcement of this theft from the poor cost more than the pittance of revenue collected in those nine years . Lesson to be learned that the govt , never has learned ....

----------


## PierzStyx

> Okay, so you adhere to a peculiar form of legalism convenient to you rather than any coherent philosophical understanding of natural rights...just great.
> 
> The "deed" was based on nothing but an arbitrary claim of the state.  This is incompatible with liberty.  Even viewed in the most charitable possible light, it starts the world off with an absurdly skewed balance of land ownership based on no justification but absolute and unquestioned state power, and then says, "Okay, NOW you lords and serfs play by the rules of individual rights and strict property ownership."  It's bull, and it has absolutely no philosophical grounding in libertarian principles or classical liberalism.
> 
> 
> If the rebels were indeed using physical force against peaceful private citizens, then I agree with you that they were acting in violation of the NAP.  If they simply chased off the tax collector, they were not:  If you showed up on my property and demanded I pay you the money I owe you, I'd chase you away too, unless you were so overwhelmingly powerful (like the government) that resistance would mean being kidnapped and thrown into a cage.  After all, I never agreed to a contract with you in the first place.  (Actually, I'd just slam my door, but I'd chase you away if you tried to collect the money I don't owe you by force.)


The "deed" is no such thing. A deed is merely a convenient way to protect the property rights of someone without having to use physical force to do so. It is a way to recognize and protect MY land (not the governments) that does not begin or end with the muzzle of a gun. In fact private ownership has nothing to do with the government, other than the government provides a means to provide a system all people can easily utilize and take part in to define the limits of the lands they own. That you somehow think this is against classical liberalism is idiotic. Ownership does not just mean who got there first, but who owns the right to the land itself. But even by the "I got here first, its mine," argument, it was still Washington's. He got there first. That he did not develop it does not mean he forfeits his ownership rights. Your claim that he must use it to own it is more against the entire idea of property rights than anything I've said. Homesteading is not the only definition of ownership.

As for the Whiskey Rebellion, that is exactly what I'm saying. They didn't just stop at assaulting tax collectors (which they had no right to do according to the NAP since a mere statement of words does not count as force unless acted upon). It became an unruly mob.

----------


## Mini-Me

> The "deed" is no such thing. A deed is merely a convenient way to protect the property rights of someone without having to use physical force to do so. It is a way to recognize and protect MY land (not the governments) that does not begin or end with the muzzle of a gun. In fact private ownership has nothing to do with the government, other than the government provides a means to provide a system all people can easily utilize and take part in to define the limits of the lands they own. That you somehow think this is against classical liberalism is idiotic. Ownership does not just mean who got there first, but who owns the right to the land itself. But even by the "I got here first, its mine," argument, it was still Washington's. He got there first. That he did not develop it does not mean he forfeits his ownership rights. Your claim that he must use it to own it is more against the entire idea of property rights than anything I've said. Homesteading is not the only definition of ownership.


My point is that you're starting from the assumption that all deeds are valid and running from there.  I'm looking back further and asking, "Where did this deed come from?"  Is it like Braveheart, where the Scottish nobles wheel and deal over deeds granted by the English king, while the commoners have no choice but to live as serfs on land already allotted to a handful of jerks through no justification but state power?    Where does the right to a specific plot of land of a specific size come from, exactly?  For instance, if I get to Mars first, does that mean I can claim all of Mars - the entire planet - for my own exclusive use without doing anything with it?  (Please say no.)  What if a government recognizes my claim.  Is it valid then?  (Please say no.)  If I can't claim the whole planet, how would you determine the boundaries of a claim that I could legitimately make?

Let's get back to first principles.  A lot of people believe in natural rights as an objective or universal truth (rights come from God, etc.), and others do not, but it's almost irrelevant:  In truth, self-ownership is the only sane default if we're going to have rules governing social conduct anyway, because they're the only rules that start from a position of equality and assume reciprocal rights.  Starting from an assumption of inequality for instance - and specifically determining who is better than someone else - requires a looooooot more justification.  All non-religious alternatives to self-ownership result in extremely arbitrary scenarios where one person owns themselves and others without any such justification (e.g. monarchy), or the collective defined by some arbitrary geographical boundary owns everyone (e.g. Communism), which are bizarre scenarios without any kind of moral parsimony.  Either way, we both claim to believe in liberty, so this is no obstacle for agreement.

It's pretty clear that self-ownership implies ownership of your time and therefore ownership of the fruits of your labor, assuming your raw materials were not previously owned by someone else (in which case voluntary contracts would apply).  Regardless of how we derive our rights though - unless we derive them from government - we're left having to come up with rational justifications for the exact mechanism by which previously unclaimed land permanently becomes your own, and under what circumstances you would forfeit your claim.  In short, we can say land is legitimately claimed by the yet-to-be-defined homesteading principle (regardless of what we think it should mean), and it is possibly forfeited by the yet-to-be-defined abandonment principle.

The thing is, the particulars of the homesteading and abandonment principles deserve a lot of attention and justification from every angle, because they're the most morally vague aspects of libertarianism (thankfully they're still more concrete and principled than alternative moral/political philosophies).  From a consequentialist standpoint, they're two of the biggest factors that can "make or break" a libertarian society, because land is such a scarce and precious resource.  Some conceptions fail terribly in this area, like the "Mars is mine because I landed on it first" and "Mars is mine because the king pointed at the map and said so" conceptions:  If you combine an extremely loose homesteading principle like that with an extremely strict abandonment principle (under no circumstances is land considered abandoned), then if there's a huge disparity in land ownership by the time unclaimed land is gone, you have a nasty recipe for an extreme wealth gap, economic stagnation, and guaranteed collectivist backlash.

There's no a priori justification for that mess following from self-evident principles, and there's no rational, consequentialist justification for it either.  In the case of "the king decreed it," the only justification is arbitrary legalism assuming the dominion of the state...which is boldly antithetical to the rational moral philosophy underlying classical liberalism and especially libertarianism, so why should we defer to it?  Instead, libertarians have settled over time on "fencing it in" as a reasonable lower bound on what legitimate homesteading looks like.  Even that may be too lax, and it will be if some future corporation is able to fence in 99% of an promising planet's entire surface with a laser in 24 hours, but at the very least, it's a lot less problematic than deferring to the king's decree from thousands of miles away.  The point is that if you're going to claim unclaimed land for yourself to the exclusion of others in the future, you'd better have a reasonable, non-absurd justification for why the boundaries you picked are legitimate.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Practically speaking, it's extremely difficult to change the rules mid-game, and George Washington was genuinely doing what he THOUGHT was right.  I'm not going to trash him, and I respect him for his attempt to be patient and fair in his own mind.  I'm just not going to concede that his claim was morally legitimate from a libertarian point of view, because coming from first principles and assuming the conventional libertarian definition of homesteading, the "rabble" had the stronger moral claim to the land.

Nowadays, the situation is different:  A lot of land has been legitimately passed through so many hands that it's hard-to-impossible to determine whether it was ever stolen from someone else (except Native Americans, *cough* ), and most small landowners since have made such strong claims of homesteading or paid such money for it that it would be a travesty to deny their claim, no matter who got screwed in the past.  In our particular situation, any dispute over most land (barring eminent domain...) would come from so far in the past that the abandonment principle elegantly solves the problem and grants legitimacy to current deeds moving forward.  That said, you could only argue this if you believe in an abandonment principle in the first place.   I would probably take a more skeptical approach to land owned by the globalist elite, since they're old money families whose histories are littered with theft and subjugation, but other than that...




> As for the Whiskey Rebellion, that is exactly what I'm saying. They didn't just stop at assaulting tax collectors (which they had no right to do according to the NAP since a mere statement of words does not count as force unless acted upon). It became an unruly mob.


In this case I think we agree on principle and any arguments would revolve around the historical specifics, so...I understand you here now.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Do you understand what I'm saying?




I understand what you're saying. And in general I agree with you. But even if you discount the king's decree, Washington was simply there first. If land is completely      unowned and someone comes along and claims it then it becomes their land, yes? Well long before these squatters ever came along, Washington had claimed ownership  of that land. By legal means and philosophical means it was his. That he was not using it is irrelevant. I reject that homesteading is the only legitimate form of land claiming. If land is unowned, unused, and unoccupied you can come along and claim it as yours. It is that simple. And once it is yours, you can do with it as you wish. That includes doing nothing with it, and if you choose to do nothing with it that doesn't make your claim of ownership invalid. 

Perhaps our disagreement is over what constitutes homesteading. Your claim is that you must live on it to own it. And because Washington did not live on it or develop it, he did not own it. I disagree. Homesteading to me is laying a claim of ownership first. Whoever can claim ownership of the land first owns that land. In fact I have issues with your definition because it makes such free market transactions as renting serious problems. I'm not worried about someone "claiming Mars". Europe tried to do that to the Americas at first and we see how that worked out. I have no doubt it'd work out the same in any other similar situation.

As for wealth disparity, I truly don't care to try and legislate that in any way. And it really isn't a concern of mine in any way. Leave markets free and no matter how rich someone becomes, both the rich and "not rich" will both be prosperous and satisfied. In fact I'm impressed that this was Washington's first reaction, to appeal to the market with renting and such, as opposed to just getting his gun, hiring a bunch of men, and driving these men off his land.

----------


## Mini-Me

To clarify, I do not believe you must live on land 24/7 to claim it...not at all!  I absolutely believe that you should be able to build something at your own cost and rent it out indefinitely.  (Otherwise, people with a bit of excess capital in their hands at the moment will lose the incentive to invest it, and nothing will be built at all.)  However, I also believe that if your homesteading principle cannot withstand extreme claims like someone landing on Mars and claiming the whole thing, it needs some tweaking. 

In this case, Washington did not satisfy even the most lax standard that libertarians have come to a cautious consensus about.  As a lower bound, the consensus libertarians seem to have agreed upon is that if you fence in unclaimed land, it's yours.  I'm willing to roll with that for practical purposes, but I think a time will come that it will fail and become absurd.  Personally, I think that if you really do build something on unclaimed land, it's unequivocally yours.  That's kind of an "upper bound" on what you need to do.  If you fence it in, I'd say it's tentatively yours, but the area of a square territory increases quadratically with the length of one of its sides, so a corporation with vast resources could fence in a ridiculous amount of territory.  In other words, if "fencing it in" is the only condition, you're left with extreme situations that become absurdly unjust, like a corporation with a giant laser beam fencing in 99% of the nearest habitable planet's surface in the space of 24 hours.  Sanity dictates "reasonable" boundaries and a lax abandonment principle to accompany a lax homesteading principle...and since this could cause problems with nature reserves, further tweaks may be necessary (some form of active stewardship?).

I know the Mars example is a hypothetical, but that's how you test the sanity of principles.  For instance, how exactly did George Washington claim exactly 3000 acres at a time (assuming exactly 3000)?  What stopped him from claiming 300000 besides his own determination that he didn't need that much?  There has to be some kind of reality-based limit to these kind of claims, so we can properly define what it means to homestead.  Otherwise, we're back to the Braveheart example at the beginning of my last post (not sure if you caught it...I've been busy editing).

----------


## Origanalist

> To clarify, I do not believe you must live on land 24/7 to claim it.  What I believe is that if your homesteading principle cannot withstand extreme claims like someone landing on Mars and claiming the whole thing, it needs some tweaking.   I know that it's a hypothetical, but that's how you test the sanity of principles.  For instance, how exactly did George Washington claim exactly 3000 acres at a time (assuming exactly 3000)?  What stopped him from claiming 300000 besides his own determination that he didn't need that much?  There has to be some kind of reality-based limit to these kind of claims that we can define proper homesteading by.





> This particular tract contained approximately 3,000 acres given to him by the British for his French and Indian War service.


From the article.

----------


## jmdrake

Except Washington wasn't there first.  The native Americans were.  The idea that the first white man to say this gazillion acres is mine means he gets it is silly.  And no, you can't  perpetually own land and not do anything with it.  At least not under common law.  There's such a thing as adverse possession.




> I understand what you're saying. And in general I agree with you. But even if you discount the king's decree, Washington was simply there first. If land is completely      unowned and someone comes along and claims it then it becomes their land, yes? Well long before these squatters ever came along, Washington had claimed ownership  of that land. By legal means and philosophical means it was his. That he was not using it is irrelevant. I reject that homesteading is the only legitimate form of land claiming. If land is unowned, unused, and unoccupied you can come along and claim it as yours. It is that simple. And once it is yours, you can do with it as you wish. That includes doing nothing with it, and if you choose to do nothing with it that doesn't make your claim of ownership invalid. 
> 
> Perhaps our disagreement is over what constitutes homesteading. Your claim is that you must live on it to own it. And because Washington did not live on it or develop it, he did not own it. I disagree. Homesteading to me is laying a claim of ownership first. Whoever can claim ownership of the land first owns that land. In fact I have issues with your definition because it makes such free market transactions as renting serious problems. I'm not worried about someone "claiming Mars". Europe tried to do that to the Americas at first and we see how that worked out. I have no doubt it'd work out the same in any other similar situation.
> 
> As for wealth disparity, I truly don't care to try and legislate that in any way. And it really isn't a concern of mine in any way. Leave markets free and no matter how rich someone becomes, both the rich and "not rich" will both be prosperous and satisfied. In fact I'm impressed that this was Washington's first reaction, to appeal to the market with renting and such, as opposed to just getting his gun, hiring a bunch of men, and driving these men off his land.

----------


## Mini-Me

> From the article.


Oh, I know, but that just punts the ball.  Replace "George Washington" with "the British."  Where did the British get it?  Presumably they made some arbitrary claim over an even larger tract of land.




> Except Washington wasn't there first.  The native Americans were.  The idea that the first white man to say this gazillion acres is mine means he gets it is silly.  And no, you can't  perpetually own land and not do anything with it.  At least not under common law.  There's such a thing as adverse possession.


Once you start entertaining the silly notion that Native Americans were people, things get too murky for George Washington.  Therefore, Native Americans weren't people.   Seriously though, I totally agree with you, and it's relevant to this particular scenario...although for the sake of abstract homesteading discussion, it may be better to address later, or we're liable to have a really messy thread. 

Actually...maybe not!  The Native Americans may help demonstrate my points about homesteading under a context PierzStyx can relate to better, actually.  In their case, PierzStyx's conception of rightful claims to land would grant the entire continent forevermore to a small population of nomadic tribes:  They claimed the whole damn thing, at least until they chose to enter into treaties and give some away.  In contrast, a stricter concept of homesteading would leave room for John Smith (and later George Washington) to arrive and claim some for himself, because there was a ton of land the Native Americans weren't regularly using.

On a superficial level, someone might object and say that the Native Americans' claims weren't legitimate because they weren't in an English-language registry of deeds (or they didn't possess a paper title in English), but as PierzStyx agreed above, the deed is really just the legal recognition of the preexisting rightful claim.  Someone also might object that the Native Americans couldn't own the land because they claimed it collectively instead of individually, but that's the same way corporations and governments claim land anyway (like the British government that George Washington got his deed from).  Really, the Native Americans are the perfect case study for more right-leaning libertarians to see why someone cannot arbitrarily claim an enormous amount of land and be justified in it...it hits home a bit better.

----------


## Origanalist

> Presumably they made some arbitrary claim over an even larger tract of land.


I think you could say that.




> , or we're liable to have a really messy thread


Here?????

----------


## Mini-Me

> I think you could say that.


Understatement? 




> Here?????


I changed my mind actually...bringing up the Native Americans is perfect even for the homesteading discussion.  Does this forum have a devil face smiley?

----------


## oyarde

I may rather talk about Hamilton than Washington , since this tax was his idea  and his many other ideas ...

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I understand what you're saying. And in general I agree with you. But even if you discount the king's decree, Washington was simply there first. If land is completely      unowned and someone comes along and claims it then it becomes their land, yes? Well long before these squatters ever came along, Washington had claimed ownership  of that land. By legal means and philosophical means it was his. That he was not using it is irrelevant. I reject that homesteading is the only legitimate form of land claiming. If land is unowned, unused, and unoccupied you can come along and claim it as yours. It is that simple. And once it is yours, you can do with it as you wish. That includes doing nothing with it, and if you choose to do nothing with it that doesn't make your claim of ownership invalid. 
> 
> Perhaps our disagreement is over what constitutes homesteading. Your claim is that you must live on it to own it. And because Washington did not live on it or develop it, he did not own it. I disagree. Homesteading to me is laying a claim of ownership first. Whoever can claim ownership of the land first owns that land. In fact I have issues with your definition because it makes such free market transactions as renting serious problems. I'm not worried about someone "claiming Mars". Europe tried to do that to the Americas at first and we see how that worked out. I have no doubt it'd work out the same in any other similar situation.
> 
> As for wealth disparity, I truly don't care to try and legislate that in any way. And it really isn't a concern of mine in any way. Leave markets free and no matter how rich someone becomes, both the rich and "not rich" will both be prosperous and satisfied. In fact I'm impressed that this was Washington's first reaction, to appeal to the market with renting and such, as opposed to just getting his gun, hiring a bunch of men, and driving these men off his land.


No. Claim is not sufficient to obtain a property title, neither is being first _per se_, if so, then Lewis and Clark should have been owners of everything West of the Mississippi. It is a poor theory of origin of property. Luckily, we have Locke who unlike your poor theory comprehensively developed a coherent, just, logical theory of property and justice. In order to obtain property title it must be JUSTLY acquired via homesteading. All property to be just must be traced back to this principle, otherwise it is illegitimate. This is why Lockean's view the State as an illegitimate expropriator who has no title to any of the property _it_ has. The question then is..., but what about parks, and other pristine institutions. 

The answer to that objection is simply the act of fencing _and_ use of the land in such ways (that is, building of trails, camping, etc.), but even then there is nothing that says after a piece of land has been homesteaded that the person or person's whom they are trading the property title cannot restore it to natural conditions since it has all ready been justly acquired (again, must be able to trace back to just acquisition through homesteading in order for property title to originate -- no different than say, Mises Theories in Money and Credit as pertaining to Regression, et. al).

PS: No one is claiming you must reside, or live on the property, only that you must have transformed the land from the state of nature through the use of your labors, then you obtain property title and even then it is not forever, since there is abandonment. You should really know the NP Lockean homesteading theory....really..

----------


## oyarde

I say , give credit where credit is due , after all Hamilton was the first to come up with the idea of stealing from the poor where the other fifty percent or so would be unaffected....

----------


## oyarde

Just so everyone knows  , I claim Southern Indiana and wish not to pay any whiskey tax

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> As for the Whiskey Rebellion, that is exactly what I'm saying. They didn't just stop at assaulting tax collectors (which they had no right to do according to the NAP since a mere statement of words does not count as force unless acted upon). It became an unruly mob.


If the "statement of words" amount to a threat of force, they violate the NAP.

----------


## Mini-Me

> The answer to that objection is simply the act of fencing _and_ use of the land in such ways (that is, building of trails, camping, etc.), but even then there is nothing that says after a piece of land has been homesteaded that the person or person's whom they are trading the property title cannot restore it to natural conditions since it has all ready been justly acquired (again, must be able to trace back to just acquisition through homesteading in order for property title to originate -- no different than say, Mises Theories in Money and Credit as pertaining to Regression, et. al).


This paragraph in particular solves the conundrum of reconciling a strict/cautious view of homesteading (mixing labor and land) with nature reserves.  Awesome.   That's where my instincts have been for a long time, but I've deferred to the looser standard of just fencing it in due to that singular problem.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> From the article.


Which means, nothing by itself. I'm going to hazard a guess that one of the aristocrats in the State didn't go out and homestead those 3,000 acres, and then give the title to Washington. So, if DC decided today to give all the land under Federal possession to some random joe, or to Goldman Sachs, that would be just? Surely, you jest.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> This paragraph in particular solves the conundrum of reconciling a strict/cautious view of homesteading (mixing labor and land) with nature reserves.  Awesome.   That's where my instincts have been for a long time, but I've deferred to the looser standard of just fencing it in due to that singular problem.


Fencing by itself would be insufficient because no labor was expended to transform any of the land that is being fenced in. At best you have ownership over the land that has fences residing atop it. Of course, there is a small leeway from each side of the fence, just as say, you have some small leeway below and above your domeciles. Walter Block goes over this in his Privatization of the Roads book and it makes perfect sense. Statists have horrible imagination. I want to see underground roadways all over the place competing for my business. It would be magnificent, imagine the great reduction of traffic, fatalities, etc.

----------


## Origanalist

> Just so everyone knows  , I claim Southern Indiana and wish not to pay any whiskey tax


Done, I'll take western Washington.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Fencing by itself would be insufficient because no labor was expended to transform any of the land that is being fenced in.


I already felt this way for practical reasons...on consequentialist grounds, this particular concept of homesteading is the only one that avoids uncomfortable absurdities, but I had trouble thinking clearly on a more principled level.

I'm starting to understand why there's a principled argument to be made too though.  The basic justification of physical property ownership is that it's an extension of self-ownership:  You own your body, and you own your time, and so you own the fruits of your labor.  However, that's only relevant to land if you physically apply yourself in a way that leaves your mark on part of the world and makes it an extension of yourself.  To connect that land with self-ownership, you need to make the land itself a fruit of your labor.  If you walk on unclaimed land, pick up a rock, and take it home, it's not yours just because you touched it...it's yours (as an extension of your self-ownership) because you made your mark by moving it from its original position.  It has therefore become a fruit of your labor of carrying it home.  Merely touching it and walking on would not suffice for ownership of a shiny pebble, so why should that - let alone a fence or an arbitrary claim - suffice for ownership of a large tract of land?

Right now I feel like I'm on more solid ground with this reasoning than I was with consequentialist reasoning alone.  Are you aware of further insights that might strengthen the argument?




> At best you have ownership over the land that has fences residing atop it. Of course, there is a small leeway from each side of the fence, just as say, you have some small leeway below and above your domeciles. Walter Block goes over this in his Privatization of the Roads book and it makes perfect sense. Statists have horrible imagination. I want to see underground roadways all over the place competing for my business. It would be magnificent, imagine the great reduction of traffic, fatalities, etc.


That's an extremely important point as well:  Homesteading in three dimensions is a lot more complicated, but "mixing labor and land" plus "a little leeway" is probably the most sensible conception I've heard.  I'm wondering though, has Block or anyone else found a way to justify "leeway" in a way that doesn't open Pandora's box and let absurd claims come out to roost?

----------


## oyarde

> Done, I'll take western Washington.


 Excellent !

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I already felt this way for practical reasons...on consequentialist grounds, this particular concept of homesteading is the only one that avoids uncomfortable absurdities, but I had trouble thinking clearly on a more principled level.
> 
> I'm starting to understand why there's a principled argument to be made too though.  The basic justification of physical property ownership is that it's an extension of self-ownership:  You own your body, and you own your time, and so you own the fruits of your labor.  However, that's only relevant to land if you physically apply yourself in a way that leaves your mark on part of the world and makes it an extension of yourself.  To connect that land with self-ownership, you need to make the land itself a fruit of your labor.  If you walk on unclaimed land, pick up a rock, and take it home, it's not yours just because you touched it...it's yours (as an extension of your self-ownership) because you made your mark by moving it from its original position.  It has therefore become a fruit of your labor of carrying it home.  Merely touching it and walking on would not suffice for ownership of a shiny pebble, so why should that - let alone a fence or an arbitrary claim - suffice for ownership of a large tract of land?
> 
> Right now I feel like I'm on more solid ground with this reasoning than I was with consequentialist reasoning alone.  Are you aware of further insights that might strengthen the argument?
> 
> 
> 
> That's an extremely important point as well:  Homesteading in three dimensions is a lot more complicated, but "mixing labor and land" plus "a little leeway" is probably the most sensible conception I've heard.  I'm wondering though, has Block or anyone else found a way to justify "leeway" in a way that doesn't open Pandora's box and let absurd claims come out to roost?


Sure, the leeway is there to prevent property violations, such as say someone tunneling under your house and causing it to collapse. An even more illustrative example would be say, a plane flying at 4,000 MPH two feet over your house that completely destroys your roofing. It is actually necessary in order to resolve contradiction in consequence - one's property right violating another's property right. 

I've never been a fan of consequentialist arguments pertaining to political philosophy and economics. That is pandora's box imho. Ever read J. A. Hobson? Now, read Mises. Both use the same theory (utilitarianism) to justify completely different ends.

----------


## oyarde

The Whiskey act created the strength of the political parties. Bad things happen easily do they not ??

----------


## oyarde

So , let me do a quick summarization . Hamilton's tax on the poor , not a good idea . Created this first tax on a domestic product. Tax specifically targeted poor farmers , everyone else exempt .This tax gave rise to the power of political parties . The public accepted fellow citizens being taxed because it did not affect them . Until the draft was used to enforce the theft on the poor . As I said when I opened this thread , the Govt cannot be defended for any of these actions .

----------


## oyarde

> Done, I'll take western Washington.


 And with my high level of wisdom , I will not charge rent on those who were already there

----------


## oyarde

What did the Whiskey excise act bring ? Precedent for tax on domestic products in congress ,  tax that was specifically targeted , using a draft to raise an Amy against citizens. Creation of power of political parties , the govt blowing more money in the effort to steal from a few , than it got back in return ......

----------


## oyarde

On the anniversary of this act , state and Fed govts should abolish the current Whiskey taxes and issue an apology

----------


## PierzStyx

> To clarify, I do not believe you must live on land 24/7 to claim it...not at all!  I absolutely believe that you should be able to build something at your own cost and rent it out indefinitely.  (Otherwise, people with a bit of excess capital in their hands at the moment will lose the incentive to invest it, and nothing will be built at all.)  However, I also believe that if your homesteading principle cannot withstand extreme claims like someone landing on Mars and claiming the whole thing, it needs some tweaking. 
> 
> In this case, Washington did not satisfy even the most lax standard that libertarians have come to a cautious consensus about.  As a lower bound, the consensus libertarians seem to have agreed upon is that if you fence in unclaimed land, it's yours.  I'm willing to roll with that for practical purposes, but I think a time will come that it will fail and become absurd.  Personally, I think that if you really do build something on unclaimed land, it's unequivocally yours.  That's kind of an "upper bound" on what you need to do.  If you fence it in, I'd say it's tentatively yours, but the area of a square territory increases quadratically with the length of one of its sides, so a corporation with vast resources could fence in a ridiculous amount of territory.  In other words, if "fencing it in" is the only condition, you're left with extreme situations that become absurdly unjust, like a corporation with a giant laser beam fencing in 99% of the nearest habitable planet's surface in the space of 24 hours.  Sanity dictates "reasonable" boundaries and a lax abandonment principle to accompany a lax homesteading principle...and since this could cause problems with nature reserves, further tweaks may be necessary (some form of active stewardship?).
> 
> I know the Mars example is a hypothetical, but that's how you test the sanity of principles.  For instance, how exactly did George Washington claim exactly 3000 acres at a time (assuming exactly 3000)?  What stopped him from claiming 300000 besides his own determination that he didn't need that much?  There has to be some kind of reality-based limit to these kind of claims, so we can properly define what it means to homestead.  Otherwise, we're back to the Braveheart example at the beginning of my last post (not sure if you caught it...I've been busy editing).


Reality is what you can claim and hold on to through either lawful and peaceful means, or raw force if it comes down to that. If no one else claims it, and you claim it, then you own it. It doesn't matter if its 3 acres or 3,000.

Also, I like that someone brought up the Indians. Simply put if there was an Indian who claimed that specific land, then yes it was his, or their tribe's land, however land ownership was seen in that tribe. though the idea that all Indians didn't believe in private land ownership is rubbish. Now if Washington went in and took specific land some tribe specifically claimed, he was in the wrong. But that doesn't mean the Scots were right either. In fact the comparison there is a good one. The Indians lived under a system much like what you are saying is legitimate. And what happened to the Indians illustrates what happens ultimately in that sort of system, that is the person with the biggest gun owns the land. Not the person to have first claim upon it, be he who can take and hold it with raw force. On the other hand, when it came to the Scots on Washington's land the system allowed for the land dispute to be settled without the shedding of a drop of blood.

----------


## Origanalist

> On the anniversary of this act , state and Fed govts should abolish the current Whiskey taxes and issue an apology


Shall we start a petition? (and if I became king of western Washington, I would do likewise , Just on those coming from California-).

----------


## PierzStyx

> So , let me do a quick summarization . Hamilton's tax on the poor , not a good idea . Created this first tax on a domestic product. Tax specifically targeted poor farmers , everyone else exempt .This tax gave rise to the power of political parties . The public accepted fellow citizens being taxed because it did not affect them . Until the draft was used to enforce the theft on the poor . As I said when I opened this thread , the Govt cannot be defended for any of these actions .



You have some really poor history. The whiskey tax did not give rise to the first political parties. If anything the issue of slavery did that. But the real root was philosophy. Also the soldiers called up for the whiskey rebellion were not drafted. they volunteered. As for domestic taxes, excise taxes are constitutional. Your argument makes no sense. The government can be successfully defended on every level to any reasonable person.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I already felt this way for practical reasons...on consequentialist grounds, this particular concept of homesteading is the only one that avoids uncomfortable absurdities, but I had trouble thinking clearly on a more principled level.


The idea of homesteading and development as the only legitimate basis for ownership IS absurd.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> The idea of homesteading and development as the only legitimate basis for ownership IS absurd.


As opposed to your theory of first claim...which is nothing more than a proclamation. That _IS_ absurd. On the contrary, homesteading is completely compatible with natural right and property rights theory (of self-propriety), etc. 

Honestly, I have no idea why you are even here, since you cannot decry the Government, as they claim ownership of all its subjects (which is first claim since they claim _everyone_ in toto, so they claim people not yet born, thus claiming them before they can claim themselves), namely us, and since you reject self-propriety by means of rejection of homesteading, there is no reasonable argument otherwise to refute the Government's claim. Not to mention, we arrive at the position you support, namely, that the Government conferring claims to individuals is by it's nature, legitimate to you. Why then do you oppose the Fed, and bailouts, and all these other conferments of property titles that the Government bestow's upon it's favored individuals? 

Now, that is truly absurd.

----------


## Aratus

tacitly all legal titles after columbus that are predicated on a western monarch presume much...

----------


## Barrex

Ill take the whiskey... all of it... transportable and easy to sell. You can fight to the death over land... I will buy it from othe one that survives...

...many "interesting" theories about ownership in this thread

----------


## Jamesiv1

> If land is completely unowned and someone comes along and claims it then it becomes their land, yes?





> If land is unowned, unused, and unoccupied you can come along and claim it as yours. It is that simple. And once it is yours, you can do with it as you wish.


This attitude is why the values and morality of western civilization will surely be the death of humanity and the ruination of our planet - at least a huge % of it.

I chuckle when you guys just gloss over the fact that someone was already here, living on the land when the Europeans arrived and started claiming it as their own.

It depresses me, until I remember that Earth has been around a long, long time, and will certainly survive a piddly 10,000 years or so of humankind.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Reality is what you can claim and hold on to through either lawful and peaceful means, or raw force if it comes down to that. If no one else claims it, and you claim it, then you own it. It doesn't matter if its 3 acres or 3,000.


It seems that in Washington's case, someone did claim it...both beforehand and afterward, and the latter actually held possession, which Washington never did up to that point.  If your argument here is that "might makes right," I'm not sure if we're having the same discussion at all.  You could make a similar argument that today's laws are just, simply because they're in place.  (It's okay for the government to steal your land and give it to Goldman Sachs in the interests of the "general welfare."  It's okay to kill people, as long as you're the government.  ...etc.)  The problem is, that's not liberty...and neither is a world where an arbitrary claim is enough for someone to play 3000 acre keep-away without lifting a finger to actually make the land theirs and appropriate it as an extension of their natural rights.

True, Washington obtained the land from the British government, but they were just playing a much larger game of keep-away with the stroke of a pen across the Atlantic.  That form of claiming permanent ownership over land has no basis in justice OR reality, especially considering the Native Americans had already "rightfully claimed" the entire continent already by your own standards...if not for their lack of an English language recorder's office and brute government force to back it up, of course.  Once again though, if "might makes right" is your moral philosophy behind the question of "ought," you can't really say you believe in liberty.  Actually, you can't even say "might makes right" here or "formality makes right" and be consistent about it, because you had already conceded that the rightful claim precedes the deed, and the deed is just recognition thereof.  In other words, you had already effectively conceded a morality that precedes law for the purpose of "ought."




> Also, I like that someone brought up the Indians. Simply put if there was an Indian who claimed that specific land, then yes it was his, or their tribe's land, however land ownership was seen in that tribe. though the idea that all Indians didn't believe in private land ownership is rubbish. Now if Washington went in and took specific land some tribe specifically claimed, he was in the wrong. But that doesn't mean the Scots were right either. In fact the comparison there is a good one. The Indians lived under a system much like what you are saying is legitimate. And what happened to the Indians illustrates what happens ultimately in that sort of system, that is the person with the biggest gun owns the land. Not the person to have first claim upon it, be he who can take and hold it with raw force. On the other hand, when it came to the Scots on Washington's land the system allowed for the land dispute to be settled without the shedding of a drop of blood.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that homesteading is incompatible with formal ownership under the law and record-keeping.  It's not.  You can earn a legally recognized deed to previously unclaimed property through homesteading just as well as through making some arbitrary claim (I hereby and forevermore claim all of Mars for myself and posterity, btw); the practical difference under the law may be simple verification by the recorder's office of the owner actually making the land his own.  In other words, the precise mechanism of making property your own has no bearing on its enforcement later on.

----------


## Mini-Me

> This attitude is why the values and morality of western civilization will surely be the death of humanity and the ruination of our planet - at least a huge % of it.
> 
> I chuckle when you guys just gloss over the fact that someone was already here, living off the land when the Europeans arrived and started claiming it as their own.
> 
> It depresses me, until I remember that Earth has been around a long, long time, and will certainly survive a piddly 10,000 years or so of humankind.


Your misanthropy kind of overlooks the fact that PierzStyx's views are being heavily contested...by those who also possess western individualistic values, none the less.  Cheer up: There's always hope.

----------


## jmdrake

> You have some really poor history. The whiskey tax did not give rise to the first political parties. If anything the issue of slavery did that. But the real root was philosophy. Also the soldiers called up for the whiskey rebellion were not drafted. they volunteered. As for domestic taxes, excise taxes are constitutional. Your argument makes no sense. The government can be successfully defended on every level to any reasonable person.




http://www.essortment.com/causes-eff...ion-20880.html
_This unpopular tax represented a large imposition of federal authority at the time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson resigned from his administration post as Secretary Of State, in part due to his protest against the whiskey tax. After Jefferson's departure, he went on to help form the Democratic-Republican Party which supported States rights against the power of the federal government. This was to lead to the demise of the Federalist party of Washington and Hamilton._ 

Slavery would later split the Democratic-Republican party into the Democrats and Republicans.

----------


## No Free Beer

he was not arrogant. i dont know who made that bull$#@! up.

----------


## oyarde

> You have some really poor history. The whiskey tax did not give rise to the first political parties. If anything the issue of slavery did that. But the real root was philosophy. Also the soldiers called up for the whiskey rebellion were not drafted. they volunteered. As for domestic taxes, excise taxes are constitutional. Your argument makes no sense. The government can be successfully defended on every level to any reasonable person.


Sorry , but I am correct , yes they did , also ,the volunteers were not enough , so the draft was used( four states). I know a bit about History

----------


## oyarde

> You have some really poor history. The whiskey tax did not give rise to the first political parties. If anything the issue of slavery did that. But the real root was philosophy. Also the soldiers called up for the whiskey rebellion were not drafted. they volunteered. As for domestic taxes, excise taxes are constitutional. Your argument makes no sense. The government can be successfully defended on every level to any reasonable person.


 I understand excise tax , and others , I am not a Judge and did not go to law school, thus , still retain my reading and comprehension abilities...

----------


## oyarde

Probably the first draft riots , pre civil war , were during this time ...

----------


## oyarde

> tacitly all legal titles after columbus that are predicated on a western monarch presume much...


 Makes sense , sounds accurate , pretty much assumed ownership based on claim....

----------


## oyarde

> he was not arrogant. i dont know who made that bull$#@! up.


 I would not call him arrogant at all , maybe just a different view...

----------


## oyarde

Most just avoided the draft , riots in three counties of Virgina . Most of the Militia was drafted , because so few volunteered  against fellow citizens . Rioting in Hagerstown Maryland resulted in the Gov sending over 800 and more than 150 were arrested ( and probably drafted  , after ) .

----------


## oyarde

Instead of rioting, on draft day, I suggest taking a hunting trip away from home , The wife can tell them you went bear hunting in Kentucky , where no tax could or would be collected because officials refusd  .

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

You guys should see the America hate fest that happened on twitter yesterday.

----------


## Origanalist

> You guys should see the America hate fest that happened on twitter yesterday.


I don't use social media much except for sites like this. Where was it coming from?

----------


## oyarde

> You guys should see the America hate fest that happened on twitter yesterday.


 i WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE , i THINK hISTORY IS IMPORTANT , TO USE AS A LEARNING TOOL , i WILL NOT DEFEND BAD POLICIES , BUT AM a gREAT aMERICAN pATRIOT

----------


## ZenBowman

> If you look at this objectively, Washington's claim to this land was specious in the first place.  It was granted to him by a government of all entities, which never properly homesteaded it.  On top of that, the government in question was the same government that was declared illegitimate by the Declaration of Independence in the first place.  Furthermore, it was a ludicrous amount of unused, unhomesteaded land that many by all rights considered abandoned at the very least.  In all truth, the "rabble" probably never knew it was "owned" in the first place before they actually DID homestead it by even the most restrictive definition of the term:  They put the sweat of their brow into building homes and a church upon it.  They actually made it theirs unlike the great surveyor George Washington, so it's no wonder they considered their claim stronger.  Frankly, I would too.
> 
> If anyone in this story was a shameless thief, it was Washington.  That doesn't mean I'd judge him as harshly as I'd judge most "nobles" who arbitrarily claim the earth as their own:  I'm sure he felt in his heart that the land was his and rightfully earned, and I'm sure he felt that he was being patient and reasonable with the people living on it.  That still doesn't mean he was in the right, and his conduct here perfectly exemplifies why leftists quote Proudhon saying, "Property is theft."  This has poisoned the left's view of individual property ownership, and if we want to have any hope of changing that, we need to make the effort to properly differentiate legitimately acquired property from ill-gotten property and arbitrary claims.


This.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> I don't use social media much except for sites like this. Where was it coming from?


Celebs, American citizens, foreigners, etc. 

Here's one from Chris Rock:




> Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks—
> Chris Rock (@chrisrock) July 04, 2012


http://twitchy.com/2012/07/04/shamef...mming-america/

----------


## oyarde

> Celebs, American citizens, foreigners, etc. 
> 
> Here's one from Chris Rock:
> 
> 
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2012/07/04/shamef...mming-america/


So , he thinks they had fireworks ??

----------


## Origanalist

> Celebs, American citizens, foreigners, etc. 
> 
> Here's one from Chris Rock:
> 
> 
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2012/07/04/shamef...mming-america/


After reading a few I think I'll go with oyarde, and just not go there.

----------


## Henry Rogue

This looks like another lvt thread. Have fun.

----------


## oyarde

> This looks like another lvt thread. Have fun.


 I will not participate in that , taxing my land is immoral . If someone else thinks different , oh well . I was just here to try and give a little History .

----------


## Origanalist

> I will not participate in that , taxing my land is immoral . If someone else thinks different , oh well . I was just here to try and give a little History .


 I started this thread simply for the selfish goal of picking up different perspectives on history as I thought the subject would provoke some debate.

The LTV people like to come crashing in like bulls in a China shop, well, it's an open forum, so be it.

----------


## oyarde

> I started this thread simply for the selfish goal of picking up different perspectives on history as I thought the subject would provoke some debate.
> 
> The LTV people like to come crashing in like bulls in a China shop, well, it's an open forum, so be it.


 I think it is a great thread , the perspective that matters , is the people who were affected .....

----------


## Henry Rogue

> I started this thread simply for the selfish goal of picking up different perspectives on history as I thought the subject would provoke some debate.
> 
> The LTV people like to come crashing in like bulls in a China shop, well, it's an open forum, so be it.


Hope I didn't open a can of worms. Sometimes I think merely typing those three letters brings them.

----------


## Origanalist

> Hope I didn't open a can of worms. Sometimes I think merely typing those three letters brings them.


Kind of like the 'thumpers' in the movie DUNE?

----------

