https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED258/59aebc1e769e6.jpeg
Ok, so I was thinking about this, you may have seen the memes about mutualism (orange and black ball) where a person leaves their house and land to go to the store and since they have abandoned it for a few minutes, a "mutualist" can then go in to claim the property and house because it is not being "actively used". (Above link is an example)
If not, I think some mutualist (anarchists) believe that property only has validity so long as it is being used. Their concern is especially for someone who originally puts up a big fence on unclaimed land and then does nothing with it, while there are people nearby who want to make use of it and would do good with the land.
Capitalists and like ancaps in response argue this is a slippery slope to people just taking other people's property, like the aforementioned meme parody.
So I thought, what if as a compromise, that maybe the mutualists are correct that property has validity morally upon being used, but that it's not a good idea to recognize that process legally speaking.
In other words, unless you're making use of property, isn't it "superfluous wealth" that perhaps ought to be loaned or given to someone in need (in accordance with Christian thought)? There's no hard rule here on how much time is too much to not make use of such stuff, but I was wondering if you think it a useful principle or not.
So, not that the legal institutions or government should permit people to repossess such unused property, but perhaps one ought to think it more moral to voluntarily make use of such property actively or to give it away if they're not going to use it?
Overall, what do you think of the mutualist theory of property having legitimacy only when it is made use of?
Well I certainly believe that (to a degree) and consider myself closer to Ancap than mutualist. Land just has to be appropriated and exploited. You don't have to physically occupy it all times.
There are many slippery-slopes in Ancapistan. What about the other side of the argument? Can I gaze at the mountains far off in the west, and the sea down to the east, and declare this entire land to be mine? I think that should be allowed if nobody else is living there, but staking a claim isn't enough, you have to acquire and use the land. That generally includes surveyors at a minimum, and security to defend it. If I do none of those things, and just say "this land is mine", can I then sell the land to someone? None of it matters until someone disputes my claim, and then the question is how valid is their claim to the land?
Like other things we would rely on courts to decide who rightfully owns what in a dispute. Courts would have some kind of register of land ownership (not required but it makes things easier), which could be disputed under agreed upon terms. Sure you could have a corrupt Commie court that sides with squatters and revolutionaries, but a court that lets people take someone else's land just because they want it would not be very well respected in Ancapistan. A court that makes reasonable judgements against giant banks with no intentions of exploiting land vs. homesteaders who are actively using it might be more respected.
Once it's clear that someone is going to illegitimately take your land - we fall back to enforcing the NAP. It's meaningless without teeth. Perhaps recruit the aid of other free landowners who realize that if they don't support you they'll be next. In any event if you don't have a majority of people in a community believing in the principles of non-aggression, everything falls apart.
If you cannot defend your claim on it you not own it really.
The question of the protection of the property by the state is just another.
The moral question of ownership over available force is also another, but first owner able to defend the thing is socially preferred.
yeah, I think they have in mind when people do things like this and then do nothing with the land or experience great profits from it with minimal amount of work put in, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the claim of ownership