Seth wrote:piscator wrote:Seth wrote:
Libertarianism does not prohibit the existence of "public" or common property, it merely forbids the majority from taking what is owned by the individual by initiating force or fraud. The concept of eminent domain does not exist in Libertarianism, but the principle of free-market negotiation most certainly does. Eminent domain as a concept holds that all land is held by individuals subject to the overarching right of the King (or the government) to use that land for its own purposes. In US law, eminent domain exists but is strictly limited by the Constitution as to how and when it may be exercised. There are two conditions stated in the Constitution itself: The taking of the property must be for "public use," and the owner of the property must receive "just compensation."
How did the land of the United States become private property?
How did the millions of square miles of, say, the Louisiana Purchase become mostly private property?
Hint: That land was overwhelmingly given to the first comers ("Entrymen") by the US government. Free of charge.
Yes, much land was homesteaded west of the Mississippi. Much of the land east of the Mississippi was bought from the Indians both before and after the Revolution...sometimes several times from several different tribes, which led to many disputes from both sides. It was hardly "free" though. There was no monetary expense, but the laws of homesteading required a significant input of labor and improvement before title passed.
...
The purpose of homestead laws was to stimulate commerce by granting land patents to settlers. Other land was sold by the government to fund government operations. This is why the Congress created the "split estate" in which it grants the surface rights to an individual but retains the subsurface mineral rights to the government. I don't agree with split estates, which should never have happened.
1. One of the first purposes of the original acts pertaining to the disposal of the Public Domain was to pay off Revolutionary War debts. And the original purpose of homestead laws in the US was to reward soldiers of the Revolutionary War.
2. As I've explained in another thread, "Land ownership" is merely a set of rights granted by some sort of conveyance and guaranteed by a government.
"Subsurface rights" are just as severable and fungible as any other of the rights bundled as a land title. If it wasn't that way since before Rome, someone would have invented it in the interim.
So you're not really correct on either score.
But granting land patents for homesteaders is only marginally different from the settlers themselves going forth and occupying the land by acquiring it from those who laid claim to it, if anyone chose to do so.
It's more than marginally different, as a government backs the rights known as "Land Title". Bob could go out and claim some patch of land for his exclusive use, but he'll have a tough time holding his claim against others or handling disputes in the absence of the force represented by a government. Governments are all the difference. Whatayougonna do?
Your base argument against government use of land depends upon a government powerful enough to enforce land laws. Congratulations on such a fine logical regression. I guess when you get to be God, you'll fix that.
