Do you really own your land, or just the topsoil?

[madengr]

I've had gas companies call twice wanting to drill on mine. I told them no.

Since fracking is horizontal several thousand feet, how do know they are not fracking under you property?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What does it mean to really own land?

I don't think land can be owned in the same sense that movable property can.

Why not?
(To own land means to have a legal monopoly on said land, as I understands it)

 

[Cabal]

That tells me what land is, but not what owning it means.

How does one come to own these things?

Usually by exchange. Previously by homesteading. If you understand owning any other piece of property, I don't see why you would have difficulty understanding ownership of land.

 

[RickyJ]

I would like to buy air rights over my land too. Then I could sue people for polluting my air!

 

[erowe1]

Why not?
(To own land means to have a legal monopoly on said land, as I understands it)

Because the ownership of other things can derive from the fact that those things owe their existence to your having made them, or bought them from somebody else who owned them and had the right to sell them to you. This can't happen with land.

 

[Cabal]

Because the ownership of other things can derive from the fact that those things owe their existence to your having made them, or bought them from somebody else who owned them and had the right to sell them to you. This can't happen with land.

See: homesteading.

If you don't understand land ownership, you shouldn't be able to understand ownership of any other tangible object in existence (outside of perhaps self-ownership) since all other [derived] tangible objects in existence ultimately emerge from mixing labor with natural resources from the land.

 

[erowe1]

See: homesteading.

If you don't understand land ownership, you shouldn't be able to understand ownership of any other tangible object in existence (outside of perhaps self-ownership) since all other [derived] tangible objects in existence ultimately emerge from mixing labor with natural resources from the land.

You just pointed right to the problem.

Owning something derives from mixing labor with natural resources.

But land does not come about by your mixing of labor and natural resources. Land is there already. You can own the things that come from your mixing of that land with your labor, but that's not the same thing as owning everything in, under, and over that land.

 

[Cabal]

You just pointed right to the problem.

Owning something derives from mixing labor with natural resources.

But land does not come about by your mixing of labor and natural resources. Land is there already. You can own the things that come from your mixing of that land with your labor, but that's not the same thing as owning everything in, under, and over that land.

The bold was the point--natural resources are already there too, no different than land. So, if you can understand ownership of natural resources, it must follow that you can understand ownership of land. Land is a natural resource.

A tree is there already, too--unless of course it was deliberately planted and nurtured by someone, but many trees are not--that doesn't mean you can't own that tree, break it down into lumber, and then craft something with that lumber. Moreover, the tree relies on the land from which it grows in order to grow, so to possess ownership of a tree is to also claim some degree of ownership of the land from which it grows, unless you're buying the tree from someone else who owns that tree.

 

[eduardo89]

Well at least in the US you can own your land and the soil beneath it (well, you can rent it by paying property taxes). In Mexico you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to the soil beneath your land. It is property of the state. You can get a mining concession and pay additional yearly taxes and have certain privileges to the soil beneath your land, but someone else can also buy that concession and kick you off your land (though they do have to pay you a small fee every year). If you find hydrocarbons on your land, it is automatically taken over by the state.

 

[erowe1]

The bold was the point--natural resources are already there too, no different than land. So, if you can understand ownership of natural resources, it must follow that you can understand ownership of land. Land is a natural resource.

I can't. You can't just own natural resources themselves that you haven't mixed with your labor. Or, at least if you can, there must be some other explanation for how.

 

[Cabal]

I can't. You can't just own natural resources themselves that you haven't mixed with your labor. Or, at least if you can, there must be some other explanation for how.

Ownership of a natural resource precedes mixing labor with it, so, by necessity you must first claim ownership of a resource before you mix your labor with it.

 

[erowe1]

Ownership of a natural resource precedes mixing labor with it, so, by necessity you must first claim ownership of a resource before you mix your labor with it.

I disagree. Ownership only comes after the mixing of labor. You can't just go out and pick out however much of any natural resource you want and declare it all yours because you think you saw it first, and then exclude everybody else from it, or demand they pay you for it.

 

[Cabal]

I disagree. Ownership only comes after the mixing of labor. You can't just go out and pick out however much of any natural resource you want and declare it all yours because you think you saw it first, and then exclude everybody else from it, or demand they pay you for it.

Which is why the ownership of land tends to be a requisite of the ability to mix labor with the natural resources of that land, given that the natural resources are contained within and/or are supported by that land.

You physically cannot mix labor with something prior to a claim of ownership. It is physically impossible. Before I can ever turn a tree into a chair, I must first have a claim of ownership of that tree. I don't just go into the woods blindfolded and randomly start swinging an axe. I choose a tree that does not belong to anyone else, and proceed to cut it down, if the tree is already owned, I can still mix my labor with it, but I can't rightfully claim ownership of it regardless of the mixing of labor, which is to say my claim in this tree isn't valid. Likewise, before I can use the tools to break that tree down into the components of that chair, I must first have a claim of ownership of those tools.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I disagree. Ownership only comes after the mixing of labor. You can't just go out and pick out however much of any natural resource you want and declare it all yours because you think you saw it first, and then exclude everybody else from it, or demand they pay you for it.

At the most basic level, the "labor" you speak of is nothing more or less than your ability to defend your staked out territory.

 

[erowe1]

Which is why the ownership of land tends to be a requisite of the ability to mix labor with the natural resources of that land, given that the natural resources are contained within and/or are supported by that land.

You physically cannot mix labor with something prior to a claim of ownership. It is physically impossible. Before I can ever turn a tree into a chair, I must first have a claim of ownership of that tree. I don't just go into the woods blindfolded and randomly start swinging an axe. I choose a tree that does not belong to anyone else, and proceed to cut it down, if the tree is already owned, I can still mix my labor with it, but I can't rightfully claim ownership of it regardless of the mixing of labor, which is to say my claim in this tree isn't valid. Likewise, before I can use the tools to break that tree down into the components of that chair, I must first have a claim of ownership of those tools.

If ownership means that no one else is excluding you from using that tree, then you're right.

But I think ownership means more than that. It also means that you have a right to exclude others from it. Once you turn it into a chair, it is your right to do that. But until you begin doing that, if somebody else turns it into a chair, then it's their chair. You don't have a right to just point to the tree whose existence owes nothing to your labor and declare it yours until you eventually get around to doing something with it. Similarly, you don't have a right to draw a big square on the ground and declare that you own everything inside it, along with the right to exclude others from it and everything below and above it, without you laboring there while you simultaneously demand that others can't labor there either.

 

[erowe1]

At the most basic level, the "labor" you speak of is nothing more or less than your ability to defend your staked out territory.

But I'm working with the assumption that there are ethical principles at the bottom of this. It's not just might makes right.

 

[Cabal]

If ownership means that no one else is excluding you from using that tree, then you're right.

But I think ownership means more than that. It also means that you are excluding others from it. Once you turn it into a chair, it is your right to do that. But until you begin doing that, if somebody else turns it into a chair, then it's their chair. You don't have a right to just point to the tree and declare it yours until you eventually get around to doing something with it. Similarly, you don't have a right to draw a big square on the ground and declare that you own everything inside it, along with the right to exclude others from it and everything below and above it, without you laboring there while you simultaneously demand that others can't labor there either.

A claim of ownership is an argument--the argument that one claim is more valid than all other claims.

If someone has fenced off a portion of land, has built a house within that area, and uses that land and its resources over time. This is, generally speaking, and within reason, a seemingly valid claim to that land. He may have a tree within this property that he doesn't mix his resources or labor with, but it grows from the land he's fenced off and uses, so for all intents and purposes, it is his tree because of his valid claim to it. I cannot rightfully go onto his property and cut this tree down and say I have the more valid claim to it since I'm the one who cut it down, unless he gave me permission to do so. Perhaps he has intentions for the tree in the future, or perhaps he finds value in leaving the tree alone, but just because he hasn't 'mixed labor' with that particular tree doesn't make it any less his, because of his claim to it.

 

[erowe1]

A claim of ownership is an argument--the argument that one claim is more valid than all other claims.

If someone has fenced off a portion of land, has built a house within that area, and uses that land and its resources over time. This is, generally speaking, and within reason, a seemingly valid claim to that land.

Notice that this argument requires that he already have labored. This doesn't explain what you said before about his owning the land prior to mixing of any labor with it.

I would also say that even this argument is only valid within certain limits. Simply building a fence around however large of a parcel of land cannot be a way to declare all of it yours. You have a right to the land you have mixed with your labor to produce something other than just a claim to the land itself, and having done that to use a fence to demarcate that land. And even this, I don't see how the "and its resources" gets tacked on. The resources you have mixed with your labor, yes. But all resources in, beneath, and above it, including those that could be taken by others to mix with their labor without affecting the resources on the land that are using? I don't see why.

 

[Cabal]

Notice that this argument requires that he already have labored. This doesn't explain what you said before about his owning the land prior to mixing of any labor with it.

Notice the scenario involved a tree with which no labor was mixed. And how do you think the chain of events played out? Did he just magically drop a house and finish his fence with a snap of his fingers? No. He had to find an unclaimed plot of land that would suit his needs/preferences, he would have to already have acquired resources and tools for a fence, and he would begin with a single fence post that doesn't set a boundary to anything. It would take him time to complete the fence and close it off, but he made the claim before he ever drove the first post into the ground.

 

[erowe1]

Notice the scenario involved a tree with which no labor was mixed.

No. Because you stipulated that the reason he owned the tree was because it was on land that he came to own by way of mixing his labor with it.

But your previous claim was that he could only mix his labor with that land if he already owned the land prior to any labor.

but he made the claim before he ever drove the first post into the ground.

I see no reason anyone has a right to do that. If so, is there a limit to how much land he can claim? If so, what determines that limit?