Hail, Ruritania!

Column by tzo.

 

Exclusive to STR

 

So a group of 20 people find themselves stranded on a previously uninhabited, lush, and rather large island that could support perhaps ten times as many people.

 
There is an abundance of fish, birds, fruit and other edible vegetation, rainwater, and plenty of trees and other raw materials for building shelter and making tools.
 
The 20 go about building their individual homes, agreeing that these separate and limited areas are each individual’s private property, and that the rest of the island is common land for all to extract the resources necessary for human survival.
 
After some time passes, they quite naturally begin to think of the island as being "theirs." They decide to call it Ruritania.
 
A shipwreck then brings another three people to the beach of the island. They are met by the larger group of island inhabitants (some wielding spears and bows and arrows) and are informed that the island cannot accommodate any new inhabitants, as the collective owns all the "public land" of the sovereign island nation of Ruritania, and trespassing will not be tolerated. The Ruritanians point the newcomers to a smaller, rockier, somewhat less bountiful island a few hundred yards off to the east that can sustain them if they work hard enough at it.
 
Is the “public land” claim by the 20 inhabitants ethical*? Are the private land claims where each individual’s home sits ethical? Would the situation be any different if the 20 inhabitants had instead divided the island up into 20 large tracts of "private property" with no "public property"?
 
Would the ethics under consideration in the previous questions change if the original shipwrecked group had found the island occupied, killed the inhabitants, and then took possession of the island?
 
What might be the attitude of the citizens of Ruritania if a shipwrecked group of 50 armed sailors wash up on shore?
 
You are the uninvolved third-party arbiter who is to decide the just solutions to the above questions. What say you?
 
Consider how this thought experiment applies to the real world that you currently inhabit. Discuss.
 
 
* “Ethical” would entail any human action that does not violate another’s person or property. What is tricky here is that we are considering what may be the ethical way to originate property claims from nature. If ethics depends upon the concept of property, can it be used to decide original claims to property as opposed to actions involving pre-existing and agreed-upon personal property? Since all property ownership stems from someone’s original claim from nature, how should these original claims be properly made? Do ethics even apply?

 

10
Your rating: None Average: 10 (2 votes)
tzo's picture
Columnist tzo
Columns on STR: 64

tzo now lives in your head.

Comments

Suverans2's picture

Last question, first.

If ethics[1] do not apply, if "right" and "wrong" are not applicable, then there is no discussion? If there is no such thing as a "just claim", a proper "right" to anything, whoever has the most "guns", i.e. "power", owns the island, or at least as much of it as they can take and defend. In fact, ethics notwithstanding, if they have enough "guns" they can lay claim to the whole earth. End of discussion.

[1] Quick definitions (ethics)
noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules
noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

tzo's picture

I believe that universality must be a part of ethics.
I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human interactions, as all humans a priori are owners of their own bodies.
I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human beings homesteading (first come, first served) resources from unowned nature in order to survive.
But to claim unclaimed land as personal property...
Many authors give up and say that whatever arrangements are made for land ownership are arrangements agreed upon by the society. Of course now universality has left the building. A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves.
How about this angle:
If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own yourself, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own yourself. Universal.
If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own whatever food you gather, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own the fruits of your own labor. Universal.
If you are alone on an island, how much of that island can you properly call your own so that if others show up, there can be no dispute over what is your property? What universal formula(?) can be applied so that we land within the realm of ethics?

Suverans2's picture

I believe that universality must be a part of ethics.
Agreed.
I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human interactions, as all humans a priori are owners of their own bodies.
Agreed. I believe that it is self-evident that all humans are the sole owners of their own body and the life within it, and because they do own them they are at liberty to choose to forfeit/contract them away.
I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human beings homesteading (first come, first served) resources from unowned nature in order to survive. Agreed. But to claim unclaimed land as personal property... If one's homestead, i.e. the home and adjacent grounds occupied by an individual or family, is not a personal possession, what would make it wrong for some individual, or some group of individuals, possessing more strength, to simply come in and take it?
Many authors give up and say that whatever arrangements are made for land ownership are arrangements agreed upon by the society. Of course now universality has left the building. A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves. Yes, with a "large part" meaning, more than the individuals that make up that collective can personally put to use.
How about this angle:
If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own yourself, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own yourself. Agreed. Universal. And, agreed.
If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own whatever food you gather Yes., and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own the fruits of your own labor. Agreed. Universal. And, agreed.
If you are alone on an island, how much of that island can you properly call your own so that if others show up, there can be no dispute over what is your property? What universal formula(?) can be applied so that we land within the realm of ethics? More specifics are needed, but as an ethical starting point I like what you wrote in your treatise entitled A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government: “A human being may justly claim as much land as he himself can put to use, and no more.” http://tinyurl.com/3xr5xf7

Suverans2's picture

Is the “public land” claim[ed] by the 20 inhabitants ethical*?

There is no living entity called "public", so "public land" is just another way of saying that it is land that no other "human being" has yet made a "just claim" on. A "just claim" being, "as much land as he himself can put to use, and no more”.

So, no, it is not ethical for the 20 to claim land that could sustain 200. If it were, why stop there, why not just claim the entire planet, (as the self-proclaimed masters are evidently trying to do), and be done with it?

Puck's picture

This particular topic--how is the first claim established--is one that I have not seen explored fully enough.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Puck. This is only my opinion. I'm not certain that this discussion will go in the direction of "how" the first claim is established, i.e. the "mechanics" of it, (if that is what you meant by "how"). And, quite frankly, for the purpose(s) most individuals want this kind of information for, it may be immaterial anyway, since the following variant of Voltaire's assertion has evidently been proven, time and again, to be correct; "It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

But I will say...

Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327.

And, as a general rule, it doesn't take much of an investigation to determine who or what one's master is. No one is his own master, i.e. a law unto himself; if he is not subject to man's artificial laws, then he is subject to true law, the Law of Nature, the Natural Law (of man).

True law is discovered by man, not created by man.

Suverans2's picture

“The 20 go about building their individual homes, agreeing that these separate and limited areas are each individual’s private property, and that the rest of the island is common land for all to extract the resources necessary for human survival. … Are the private land claims where each individual’s home sits ethical?” ~ tzo

I would have to answer, yes, they are ethical, because they apparently do “not violate another’s person or property”, provided, naturally, that each has claimed only what “he himself can put to use, and no more”.

I forsee the “common land for all to extract the resources necessary for human survival” presenting much larger problems.

tzo's picture

Yes, having land set aside for common use leads to the tragedy of the commons. The supposed solution to this is to privatize everything. But that is to have people own land beyond what they can directly put to use and leads in this case to splitting the island up into large pieces of private property that excludes newcomers.

Of course land owners are free to rent portions of their land to newcomers, but the situation still seems a bit like a land monopoly or at least oligarchy.

Is land a special case of property rights? Can a rich person own as much land as he wants to the exclusion of everyone else even if he just lets it sit and do nothing? The source of all goods is the Earth, and if a few control the land, the root of all usable resources, then where does that leave everyone else?

Even if initial claims were all limited to what the owner could use, that would not stop the wealthy from buying properties from others and accumulating 'uge tracts of land.

Do you have to use it or lose it? Does that need to be an essential clause in all land property titles?

Or would a truly free market not allow such vast imbalance to occur?

Suverans2's picture

Now you've gone and done it, tzo, you've opened that dad-blamed can of worms! lol

I think the real challenge with land possession began when man went beyond "extract[ing] the resources necessary for human survival", as you so appropriately stated it, and stepped into the world of "accumulating wealth", of taking more than he could use, the world of "greed".

“For greed, all nature is too little.” ~ Marcus Annaeus Seneca

Suverans2's picture

BOOK II, CHAPTER 5 Of Property
...
§ 46. The greatest part of things really useful to the life of man, and such as the necessity of subsisting made the first commoners of the world look after - as it doth the Americans now [late 1600's] - are generally things of short duration, such as - if they are not consumed by use - will decay and perish of themselves. Gold, silver, and diamonds are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real use and the necessary support of life. Now of those good things which Nature hath provided in common, every one hath a right (as hath been said) to as much as he could use; and had a property in all he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could extend to, to alter from the state Nature had put it in, was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples had thereby a property in them; they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And, indeed, it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of If he gave away a part to anybody else, so that it perished not uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of And if he also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour, or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others; he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of anything uselessly in it.

§ 47. And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that, by mutual consent, men would take in exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life.

§ 48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. For supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but a hundred families, but there were sheep, horses, and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness or perishableness, fit to supply the place of money. What reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful commodities with others? Where there is not something both lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so rich, never so free for them to take. For I ask, what would a man value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated and well stocked, too, with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of Nature whatever was more than would supply the conveniences of life, to be had there for him and his family.

§ 49. Thus, in the beginning, all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was anywhere known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions.

§ 50. But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men - whereof labour yet makes in great part the measure - it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth - I mean out of the bounds of society and compact; for in governments the laws regulate it; they having, by consent, found out and agreed in a way how a man may, rightfully and without injury, possess more than he himself can make use of by receiving gold and silver, which may continue long in a man's possession without decaying for the overplus, and agreeing those metals should have a value.

§ 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it; so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others. What portion a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed. ~ Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690) by John Locke

Suverans2's picture

And here we are, back at "money"...again!

"For the love of money is the root of all evil..."

This "love of money", our own "greed", has taken us from commodity trading, i.e. bartering, where "it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed", to a false-commodity based money[1], which enabled man to "enlarge his possessions", to debt-money, which "legalized" counterfeiting, i.e. creating "money" with absolutely nothing of substance backing it, which has given the "counterfeiters" the illusion of wealth, which in turn has given them the power to enslave virtually everyone on planet Earth.

Maybe it's time we got back to the basics of life.

Endnote:
[1] It never was true-commodity based money because gold, silver and diamonds, as John correctly pointed out, "are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real use and the necessary support of life". Think about that the next time you consider trading a portion of your life for gold, silver and/or diamonds! When the SHTF that "fancy" will disappear very abruptly!

Paul's picture

"A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves."

Not only can they agree to do that; they do it! Look at our quest for oil in Iraq.

It's up to the people living in the claimed areas to dispute this claim.

Now, if the governments in those areas have seen fit to disarm their people, they shouldn't be surprised when they lose everything. And if the people in those areas let their government (who are no better, after all, than the outside bastards trying to take over) disarm them, then they shouldn't be surprised when they lose everything too.

Property, again, only exists for those who can defend it. Ethics? It is a survival mechanism within a society, that apparently does not operate at all between societies. And even within some societies, it would be considered a luxury.

There is no need to even think about "first claims". No part of this earth, except maybe Antarctica, has been available for appropriation (without displacing existing populations) for many thousands of years. It's a moot point by now.

Suverans2's picture

"Property, again, only exists for those who can defend it." ~ Paul

Then, AGAIN, according to that twisted logic, there can be no such thing as theft.

THEFT, n. The act of stealing. In law, the private, unlawful, felonious taking of another person's goods or movables, with an intent to steal them. To constitute theft, the taking must be in private or without the owner's knowledge, and it must be unlawful or felonious, that is, it must be with a design to deprive the owner of his PROPERTY privately and against his will. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Theft. ...The taking of PROPERTY without the owner's consent. People v. Sims, 29 Ill.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page1477

And, you therefore cannot rightfully say that "taxation is theft", http://strike-the-root.com/search/node/taxation%20is%20theft because, according to your ****** ** rules, it can't be: if the government is able to take it and defend it, it's its property, fair and square. End of ******* story!

"There is no need to even think about "first claims". No part of this earth, except maybe Antarctica, has been available for appropriation (without displacing existing populations) for many thousands of years. It's a moot point by now." ~ Paul

Jesus Christ, Paul, I'm scratchin' my head over that one, too.

Just in North Carolina, alone, there are four "national forests", including the Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests, all totaling about ONE MILLION, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY ACRES, where, I'm sure, a man and his family could make a "first claim" on a tiny little ten or fifteen acre parcel without "displacing existing populations".

Nantahala National Forest: Size: 531,286 acres
Pisgah National Forest: Size: 510,119 acres
Croatan National Forest: Size: 159,886 acres
Uwharrie National Forest: Size: Size: 50,189 acres

Suverans2's picture

"Would the ethics under consideration in the previous questions change if the original shipwrecked group had found the island occupied, killed the inhabitants, and then took possession of the island?"

In the scenario you have given us, if it wasn't in self-defense, these members of the "original shipwrecked group" are guilty of murder, unlawful, i.e. unethical, killing of one human by another...unless, of course, one says that the lives of "the inhabitants" was not their rightful property, because they were unable to defend them; in which case there can be no such thing as murder.

But some things that would make your question of ethics much more difficult, tzo, are (1) what if the island had only the capability of barely sustaining those inhabitants, and (2) there was not "a smaller, rockier, somewhat less bountiful island a few hundred yards off to the east", and this shipwrecked group killed the inhabitants in order to survive: would the ethics under consideration change? Tough call.

Suverans2's picture

Found, in Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary, the following, seemingly "rational" Maxim of Law regarding "necessity", (among many), after posing that above question.

Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61.

Then, of course, "necessity" must be strictly defined.

NECESSITY. In general, whatever makes the contrary of a thing impossible, whatever may be the cause of such impossibilities,
2. Whatever is done through necessity, is done without any intention, and as the act is done without will, (q.v.) and is compulsory, the agent is not legally responsible. Bac. Max. Reg. 5. Hence the maxim, necessity has no law; indeed necessity is itself a law which cannot be avoided nor infringed. Clef des Lois Rom. h.t.; Dig 10, 3, 10, 1; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 M 20, 3 M 30.
3. It follows, then, that the acts of a man in violation of law, or to the injury of another, may be justified by necessity, because the actor has no will to do or not to do the thing, he is a mere tool; but, it is conceived, this necessity must be absolute and irresistible, in fact, or so presumed in point of law.
4. The cases which are justified by necessity, may be classed as follows: [The first one seems to apply to my scenario, so the others have been omitted for the sake of brevity.]
I. For the preservation of life; as if two persons are on the same plank, and one must perish, the survivor is justified in having thrown off the other, who was thereby drowned. Bac. Max, Reg. 5.