Philosophy Towards a Theory of Property

[JagerIV]

As part of my Dunbar's State project, I realized I needed a theory of Property. A human scale society needs some idea of what someone can reasonably own, why, and what practical forms that ownership can take.

The initial reason I realized I needed such a theory was for colonization purposes: The Dunbar project envisions a science fictional situation where new worlds and land could come into being: the project is to try and follow in the traditions of Starship Troopers and Start Trek of imagining a possible/good future.

A frontier and thus unclaimed lands would thus require a reasonable method to the formation of new States and property rights: what does it take to claim mars? One flag would seem insufficient, and if ownership of Mars could be established by a mere act of congress, makes all property merely a will of government.

I determined it was also important to the establishment of taxation rights, the degree regulatory authority is justified, such as the regulation of monopolies, and general collective action such as democratic impositions, and mechanisms to stand against accumulation of power.

When I started looking, the first thing I found was the Labor theory of Property.

This seems to be roughly the natural law foundation of a theory of Property, as outlined by John Locke:

Sect. 27

. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

This, the seeming beginning, seems a good place to hopefully start a discussion on a theory of Property.

 

[Marduk]

As part of my Dunbar's State project, I realized I needed a theory of Property. A human scale society needs some idea of what someone can reasonably own, why, and what practical forms that ownership can take.

The initial reason I realized I needed such a theory was for colonization purposes: The Dunbar project envisions a science fictional situation where new worlds and land could come into being: the project is to try and follow in the traditions of Starship Troopers and Start Trek of imagining a possible/good future.

A frontier and thus unclaimed lands would thus require a reasonable method to the formation of new States and property rights: what does it take to claim mars? One flag would seem insufficient, and if ownership of Mars could be established by a mere act of congress, makes all property merely a will of government.

I determined it was also important to the establishment of taxation rights, the degree regulatory authority is justified, such as the regulation of monopolies, and general collective action such as democratic impositions, and mechanisms to stand against accumulation of power.

When I started looking, the first thing I found was the Labor theory of Property.

This seems to be roughly the natural law foundation of a theory of Property, as outlined by John Locke:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government, by John Locke


This, the seeming beginning, seems a good place to hopefully start a discussion on a theory of Property.

It's the default way for the pre-industrial times, in which case farming, with all its pre-industrial limitations, was synonymous with valuable land. All the other less important territory nearby gets handled by whatever polity the nearby farm holders are a part of. And that would be the source of all the issues with it in space colonization. Obviously that farming oriented system won't work on Mars.
What happens if a corporation drops few hundreds of prefab comm towers to provide cell service to a big chunk of the planet? That would be pretty ridiculous.
The other natural way is "whoever can keep competing claimants away", as in a military criterion.

 

[JagerIV]

It's the default way for the pre-industrial times, in which case farming, with all its pre-industrial limitations, was synonymous with valuable land. All the other less important territory nearby gets handled by whatever polity the nearby farm holders are a part of. And that would be the source of all the issues with it in space colonization. Obviously that farming oriented system won't work on Mars.
What happens if a corporation drops few hundreds of prefab comm towers to provide cell service to a big chunk of the planet? That would be pretty ridiculous.
The other natural way is "whoever can keep competing claimants away", as in a military criterion.

Hm, that would theoretically be something along the line of the railroad land grants, where the railroads got a lot of free land in exchange for building railroads. This is somewhat undesirable in that it does encourage overbuilding of infrastructure in a speculatory manner.

Though, by raw improvement it also theoretically represents a very small footprint. Taken very literally, a pre-fab comms tower is, what, 1 m^2 of land area? 10m^2 maybe with attached solar panels and other supports? In such a case, dropping even a 1,000 comm towers at the 10m^2 value is only 10,000m^2, or about 1% of a square km.

And of course, it has very limited ability to protect the territory, which I think may be at least an implicit part of ownership, like you suggest. Such in general suggest very little possession, and possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Simply deploying comm towers seem like it would suggest very little, outside of a government proclamation to the effect that the placement of a marker like a comm tower granted ownership over x number of immediate km. Or a general government ownership was declared, which creates potential for divergent on the ground vs treaty/law agreements, such as occurred with the colonization of Brazil.

 

[Marduk]

Hm, that would theoretically be something along the line of the railroad land grants, where the railroads got a lot of free land in exchange for building railroads. This is somewhat undesirable in that it does encourage overbuilding of infrastructure in a speculatory manner.

Yeah, it raises the issue of which infrastructure is more important relative to others. Shitty solar panels for powers that take a lot of land? Power lines for them? A nuclear reactor? How about a road or atmospheric processor?

Though, by raw improvement it also theoretically represents a very small footprint. Taken very literally, a pre-fab comms tower is, what, 1 m^2 of land area? 10m^2 maybe with attached solar panels and other supports? In such a case, dropping even a 1,000 comm towers at the 10m^2 value is only 10,000m^2, or about 1% of a square km.

But it serves a very large area...
On the other hand you don't want to encourage pointlessly area inefficient but cheap stuff for claims. Like some very shitty mass produced solar panels with very low efficiency.
Or some kind of gene engineered moss.

And of course, it has very limited ability to protect the territory, which I think may be at least an implicit part of ownership, like you suggest. Such in general suggest very little possession, and possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Well then, a tactical ballistic missile system or ground to orbit weapon would naturally provide a lot of ownership. So it goes down to states and megacorps.

Simply deploying comm towers seem like it would suggest very little, outside of a government proclamation to the effect that the placement of a marker like a comm tower granted ownership over x number of immediate km. Or a general government ownership was declared, which creates potential for divergent on the ground vs treaty/law agreements, such as occurred with the colonization of Brazil.

Again, differences in preindustrial vs post-industrial practicalities. On Mars the scenario where one party doesn't find out that other parties are claiming land they are trying to by facts on the ground in the age of drones and satellites is... rather unlikely. Either they challenge it as an invasion or not, there is little room for ignorance and confusion there.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Rather than a system, I think it might be more efficient to posit a set of goals and then attempt to build towards them.

Fundamentally any theory of property has two mutually-exclusive goals:

1: Property needs to be passed from one generation to the next, so that any land-owner has an incentive to use their property wisely in order to pass it to their heirs instead of blowing it all in their twilight years. Ventures such as family businesses and farms also need to stay in the family for the sake of efficiency.
2: Society needs social mobility, such that a person born in a poor position will be able, with hard work, to accumulate property to pass on in their lifetime.

The issue here of course is that passing on property means heirs have a massive headstart on those without wealthy parents, and it's the nature of successful businesses to try and shut down competition before it starts and use regulatory capture to cement their own position as soon as they are able.

The traditional means to combat this is heavy inheritance taxes and progressive taxation to slow down the most successful ventures while redistributing the wealth to the bottom percentiles in order to give them a leg up and a chance to show they can make it as well. However this is both unpopular, inefficient, and prone to winding up a victim of regulatory capture itself.

There's a certain parallel here to copyrights and patents. It's desirable to reward creativity and innovation, but also desirable to have a rich public domain and base of technology for the next generation of artists and inventors to build on. Limited-term copyrights and patents for a few years were the reasonable compromise. However once companies became successful and owned copyrights and patents, they immediately began coming up with ways to ever-extend their patents and copyrights which in the modern day has severely stifled creativity and innovation, and promoted rent-seeking on inventions and endless sequels, prequels, and reboots of existing properties rather than anything new appearing.

 

[Marduk]

The issue here of course is that passing on property means heirs have a massive headstart on those without wealthy parents, and it's the nature of successful businesses to try and shut down competition before it starts and use regulatory capture to cement their own position as soon as they are able.

That's something market competition is supposed to do, not state destroying some businesses with inheritance taxes.

 

[JagerIV]

Rather than a system, I think it might be more efficient to posit a set of goals and then attempt to build towards them.

Fundamentally any theory of property has two mutually-exclusive goals:

1: Property needs to be passed from one generation to the next, so that any land-owner has an incentive to use their property wisely in order to pass it to their heirs instead of blowing it all in their twilight years. Ventures such as family businesses and farms also need to stay in the family for the sake of efficiency.
2: Society needs social mobility, such that a person born in a poor position will be able, with hard work, to accumulate property to pass on in their lifetime.

The issue here of course is that passing on property means heirs have a massive headstart on those without wealthy parents, and it's the nature of successful businesses to try and shut down competition before it starts and use regulatory capture to cement their own position as soon as they are able.

The traditional means to combat this is heavy inheritance taxes and progressive taxation to slow down the most successful ventures while redistributing the wealth to the bottom percentiles in order to give them a leg up and a chance to show they can make it as well. However this is both unpopular, inefficient, and prone to winding up a victim of regulatory capture itself.

There's a certain parallel here to copyrights and patents. It's desirable to reward creativity and innovation, but also desirable to have a rich public domain and base of technology for the next generation of artists and inventors to build on. Limited-term copyrights and patents for a few years were the reasonable compromise. However once companies became successful and owned copyrights and patents, they immediately began coming up with ways to ever-extend their patents and copyrights which in the modern day has severely stifled creativity and innovation, and promoted rent-seeking on inventions and endless sequels, prequels, and reboots of existing properties rather than anything new appearing.

Hm, there would I think be a bit of both: one obviously wants principles which lead to good outcomes, but the principles also have their own logic, leading conclusions one might not have initially desired, but might be a logical, and acceptable, outcome of the system.

My personal bias is to trying to put together a system and seeing what the logical outcomes are, but you are right that I am looking to meet certain ends too.

Patents are actually one of the things I was thinking of on: if the principle is "ownership descends from labor", then that quite obviously puts a limiting principle on something like a patent: the more distant the returns from any labor/virtue of the creator, the weaker their claims to ownership over those returns.

Obviously, it doesn't place a hard and fast rule, but the principle being explicit provides one an argument against the eternal patent on moral grounds. Same with situations where the State may wish to simple gift land out of the public domain merely based on political favoritism.

One general liberal ideal is to generally have a principle to the thing, not merely the will of the king (or bureaucrat as it may be).

Still, on the social welfare side, I lean towards the solution the idea of the decay of ownership when not actively maintained.

For Land, it would be simple enough to simply have a presence threshold. So, for the space example, ownership on Mars may require at least some level of presence: say a walk about the land claimed. Say 100 km, a boarder marker every 10-100 meters. As a circle that would be about an area of 800 km^2, or about 200,000 acres. About $200 million of land if it was as valuable as average Wyoming land, $1,000 per acre.

However, if the base is abandoned, say for a period of 7 years, then it would revert back to the public domain. Open to being claimed by a new owner.

If you make the ownership presence test dependent upon the owner himself being present, that seems like it provides additional protections and useful effects.

For one, it provides a soft cap on how much one person can own: say the presence test was 1 day present per square km every 7 years. For the vast majority of people, that is not a problem at all: they live on their property full time, and if they do own some investment property somewhere else, a visit every 7 years should not be any great burden, especially if the property is producing any significant value for the owner and not lying fallow. If you have more than 250 square km however, some 60,000 acres, your spending some 10% of your time protecting your land claims!

It also should dramatically limit absent landlords, a bigger danger I think than lack of mobility per say: Musk for example might never actually own any Martian territory if he never travels there himself: Mars from the beginning would be owned by Martians, and you neatly sidestep the problems down the road of Martians living on a planet 90% owned by Earthlings.

SpaceX would probably end up with a 99 year lease on the ground the space port is built on, and some very one sided contracts with the de-facto company town being founded to support the spaceport. Still, a one way, possibly exploitative 99 year lease is better than an unlimited time Earth based property right: if SpaceX is necessary to the survival of the colony the first 50 years, after which the contract becomes exploitative, the Martians at least know they own their land and the deal runs out in 49 more years. Which is a long wait, but still likely less unpleasant than a revolution to sieze the means of production from earth ownership.

 

[Marduk]

Hm, there would I think be a bit of both: one obviously wants principles which lead to good outcomes, but the principles also have their own logic, leading conclusions one might not have initially desired, but might be a logical, and acceptable, outcome of the system.

My personal bias is to trying to put together a system and seeing what the logical outcomes are, but you are right that I am looking to meet certain ends too.

Patents are actually one of the things I was thinking of on: if the principle is "ownership descends from labor", then that quite obviously puts a limiting principle on something like a patent: the more distant the returns from any labor/virtue of the creator, the weaker their claims to ownership over those returns.

Obviously, it doesn't place a hard and fast rule, but the principle being explicit provides one an argument against the eternal patent on moral grounds. Same with situations where the State may wish to simple gift land out of the public domain merely based on political favoritism.

One general liberal ideal is to generally have a principle to the thing, not merely the will of the king (or bureaucrat as it may be).

Still, on the social welfare side, I lean towards the solution the idea of the decay of ownership when not actively maintained.

For Land, it would be simple enough to simply have a presence threshold. So, for the space example, ownership on Mars may require at least some level of presence: say a walk about the land claimed. Say 100 km, a boarder marker every 10-100 meters. As a circle that would be about an area of 800 km^2, or about 200,000 acres. About $200 million of land if it was as valuable as average Wyoming land, $1,000 per acre.

However, if the base is abandoned, say for a period of 7 years, then it would revert back to the public domain. Open to being claimed by a new owner.

If you make the ownership presence test dependent upon the owner himself being present, that seems like it provides additional protections and useful effects.

For one, it provides a soft cap on how much one person can own: say the presence test was 1 day present per square km every 7 years. For the vast majority of people, that is not a problem at all: they live on their property full time, and if they do own some investment property somewhere else, a visit every 7 years should not be any great burden, especially if the property is producing any significant value for the owner and not lying fallow. If you have more than 250 square km however, some 60,000 acres, your spending some 10% of your time protecting your land claims!

It also should dramatically limit absent landlords, a bigger danger I think than lack of mobility per say: Musk for example might never actually own any Martian territory if he never travels there himself: Mars from the beginning would be owned by Martians, and you neatly sidestep the problems down the road of Martians living on a planet 90% owned by Earthlings.

SpaceX would probably end up with a 99 year lease on the ground the space port is built on, and some very one sided contracts with the de-facto company town being founded to support the spaceport. Still, a one way, possibly exploitative 99 year lease is better than an unlimited time Earth based property right: if SpaceX is necessary to the survival of the colony the first 50 years, after which the contract becomes exploitative, the Martians at least know they own their land and the deal runs out in 49 more years. Which is a long wait, but still likely less unpleasant than a revolution to sieze the means of production from earth ownership.

What does a random person do with more or less 1 square kilometer of martian land?
Most likely, absolutely nothing, Mars is not 18th century America. Any land that is valuable must have likely valuable resources under it at minimum. It's not like you can cut a bunch of trees or at least plant a corn field on the pristine land. Geologically surveyed land has far more value (or confirmed lack of it) than any small prefab shelter housing a colonist in spartan conditions.
Also your system completely ignores the fact that businesses may need to own land, and want to do so far more than most individuals, having an actual use for some of it.

Let's not mix patents here, they are a completely artificial kind of property, existing de facto only in specific legal systems and countries nice enough to recognize them, while real estate is far more physical.

In effect, one thing is certain, whoever wields some kind of military force over the territory in question will have the say which system is in. Besides that? Said party may aswell auction off parts of the land, perhaps including some kind of basic infrastructure and emergency assistance coverage (which would be a big deal in early Mars colonization).

 

[JagerIV]

Yeah, it raises the issue of which infrastructure is more important relative to others. Shitty solar panels for powers that take a lot of land? Power lines for them? A nuclear reactor? How about a road or atmospheric processor?

But it serves a very large area...
On the other hand you don't want to encourage pointlessly area inefficient but cheap stuff for claims. Like some very shitty mass produced solar panels with very low efficiency.
Or some kind of gene engineered moss.

I'm not really sure the importance of the infrastructure really matters per say. I think more important is that ownership is divied up fairly, rather than maximumly productive. If the goal is mere maximizing productivity, that doesn't even necesarily suggest any particularly strong property rights, and suggests emminently domaining people's land for not using it optimally would be a fair thing to do.

Serving a large area is not however a particularly good measure either: the Phone company does not get to claim ownership over all the land its sevices tough. Picturing a judge adjudicating completing claims, I'm hard pressed to think of a claim weaker than a phone system.

Well then, a tactical ballistic missile system or ground to orbit weapon would naturally provide a lot of ownership. So it goes down to states and megacorps.

Practically, yes. Of course, one of the moral justification of a State is that, as the one with a big stick, it can force is decision to be made on the basis of justice, rather than naked force. But practically, whenever the Federation comes up against someone willing to use force to defend their claims, discretion will assert itself.

Again, differences in preindustrial vs post-industrial practicalities. On Mars the scenario where one party doesn't find out that other parties are claiming land they are trying to by facts on the ground in the age of drones and satellites is... rather unlikely. Either they challenge it as an invasion or not, there is little room for ignorance and confusion there.

Hm, I'm not sure how much difference the pre vs post industrial actually makes here, at least on this particular point. In the Brazilian example, the joint monarch of Portugal and Spain was aware the Portuguese weren't respecting the lines, but didn't move to stop them either. It was less ignorance than indifference, at least by the summaries I've read.

But, if you don't challenge and defend your rights, then by basic squatters rights the legitimacy of your claim diminishes: to take the example of the Mars base earlier: if say the US lays claim to that 800 square km of Martian territory, then later the Indians build a comms station on US claimed territory.

If the US responds and acts to get it removed in the year its established, their claim is strong. If they wait 10 years before moving in to evict them, they're claim is much weaker.

To keep the principles in some connection to reality, as Natrual law would require, the formal property rights should recognize this reality and codify them in some standard way, so as to minimize the room for confusion or bad faith interpretations.

 

[Marduk]

I'm not really sure the importance of the infrastructure really matters per say. I think more important is that ownership is divied up fairly, rather than maximumly productive. If the goal is mere maximizing productivity, that doesn't even necesarily suggest any particularly strong property rights, and suggests emminently domaining people's land for not using it optimally would be a fair thing to do.

Fairly according to what standard? One's investment in infrastructure certainly has to have some value in the framework of property rights.

Serving a large area is not however a particularly good measure either: the Phone company does not get to claim ownership over all the land its sevices tough. Picturing a judge adjudicating completing claims, I'm hard pressed to think of a claim weaker than a phone system.

But it is a claim, and it does add value to land. Then you have the road builders, the power company, the water company, the emergency patrol...
That's the thing, this system translates far better to habitable territories than what is by our standards an extremely hostile desert. An interesting comparison would be who ended up owning the US desert territories...
I'm pretty sure family estates of pioneer heritage are quite rare there.

Practically, yes. Of course, one of the moral justification of a State is that, as the one with a big stick, it can force is decision to be made on the basis of justice, rather than naked force. But practically, whenever the Federation comes up against someone willing to use force to defend their claims, discretion will assert itself.

The other side of that coin is that if the state doesn't do that, some other state eventually will.

Hm, I'm not sure how much difference the pre vs post industrial actually makes here, at least on this particular point. In the Brazilian example, the joint monarch of Portugal and Spain was aware the Portuguese weren't respecting the lines, but didn't move to stop them either. It was less ignorance than indifference, at least by the summaries I've read.

But, if you don't challenge and defend your rights, then by basic squatters rights the legitimacy of your claim diminishes: to take the example of the Mars base earlier: if say the US lays claim to that 800 square km of Martian territory, then later the Indians build a comms station on US claimed territory.

If the US responds and acts to get it removed in the year its established, their claim is strong. If they wait 10 years before moving in to evict them, they're claim is much weaker.

To keep the principles in some connection to reality, as Natrual law would require, the formal property rights should recognize this reality and codify them in some standard way, so as to minimize the room for confusion or bad faith interpretations.

The difference is that back then it took a major effort and to even do a rudimentary attempt at an enforcement action, and a lot of ambiguity could be held for a long time. And the joint monarch situation just made it more confusing in an unique way.
But now, well, any state that has the resources to have any colonial ambitions on Mars and has a presence there, can certainly afford at least some drones...
So the hypothetical Indian comms station at minimum gets hit by a small, 3d printed bomb dropped from a repurposed utility drone normally used for mapping and sample collection, provided US Space Marines weren't given a big enough budget and the Space Force didn't threaten to blast any future Indian spacecraft from Mars orbit if India doesn't stop violating US claims. What then?

 

[JagerIV]

Fairly according to what standard? One's investment in infrastructure certainly has to have some value in the framework of property rights.

Isn't that what were discussing? Are you suggesting some sense of fairness is not necesary part of a system?

But it is a claim, and it does add value to land. Then you have the road builders, the power company, the water company, the emergency patrol...
That's the thing, this system translates far better to habitable territories than what is by our standards an extremely hostile desert. An interesting comparison would be who ended up owning the US desert territories...
I'm pretty sure family estates of pioneer heritage are quite rare there.

None of your arguments really rest on it being a desert or not, though I think I'm losing track of what you are arguing. That property rights in a desert are different than one near a river?

The other side of that coin is that if the state doesn't do that, some other state eventually will.

Sure, but I'm not sure what the gotcha here is?

The difference is that back then it took a major effort and to even do a rudimentary attempt at an enforcement action, and a lot of ambiguity could be held for a long time. And the joint monarch situation just made it more confusing in an unique way.
But now, well, any state that has the resources to have any colonial ambitions on Mars and has a presence there, can certainly afford at least some drones...
So the hypothetical Indian comms station at minimum gets hit by a small, 3d printed bomb dropped from a repurposed utility drone normally used for mapping and sample collection, provided US Space Marines weren't given a big enough budget and the Space Force didn't threaten to blast any future Indian spacecraft from Mars orbit if India doesn't stop violating US claims. What then?

Then the US defended its claim? This comes back to I think I'm losing the thread of what exactly your arguing for here?

What does a random person do with more or less 1 square kilometer of martian land?
Most likely, absolutely nothing, Mars is not 18th century America. Any land that is valuable must have likely valuable resources under it at minimum. It's not like you can cut a bunch of trees or at least plant a corn field on the pristine land. Geologically surveyed land has far more value (or confirmed lack of it) than any small prefab shelter housing a colonist in spartan conditions.
Also your system completely ignores the fact that businesses may need to own land, and want to do so far more than most individuals, having an actual use for some of it.

Let's not mix patents here, they are a completely artificial kind of property, existing de facto only in specific legal systems and countries nice enough to recognize them, while real estate is far more physical.

In effect, one thing is certain, whoever wields some kind of military force over the territory in question will have the say which system is in. Besides that? Said party may aswell auction off parts of the land, perhaps including some kind of basic infrastructure and emergency assistance coverage (which would be a big deal in early Mars colonization).

Well, does businesses actually need to own land? Its certainly the current thing, but we also once accepted owning people too. Corporations being able to own land is not a requirement, and there are certainly some arguments against it, though I'm not certain either way, just leaving it open.

Eh, patents I think are completely legitimate to consider as part of property rights: its not that different from other sources of rent: a cattle farm paying me rent for using my land doesn't seem outside the realm of comparison for them paying me rent for the use of a cow collar I invented. Patents and intellectual property are very much discussed in terms of ownership and just compensation for the labor of its production.

Would you consider Earth corporations owning much of the land on Mars, especially with Martian colonists, a problem, or not?

 

[Marduk]

Isn't that what were discussing? Are you suggesting some sense of fairness is not necesary part of a system?

I was implying that if an investment system is to be pursued at all, due to the sheer variety of potential options and different nature of colonization than wild west era America, homesteading analogues just don't cut it. So, how about investment value standard, without getting into the details of who, what and how?

None of your arguments really rest on it being a desert or not, though I think I'm losing track of what you are arguing. That property rights in a desert are different than one near a river?

Yes, the property near, say, Colorado river in Wild West era had clear, unquestionable value and utility to any settler with a clue.
But what do you do with a piece of desert, doubly so, a piece of desert on Mars? Even on Earth private individuals generally don't go out of their way to buy a piece of desert, even cheaply, unless there are confirmed valuable resources under it. How many Egyptians wish they could own a square kilometer of Sahara?

Sure, but I'm not sure what the gotcha here is?

Either a meaningful military will protect its sovereignty over a given piece of land, or someone who has one will take it eventually. That's a strategic principle that might doom attempts at microstates unless recognized and under protection of such.

Then the US defended its claim? This comes back to I think I'm losing the thread of what exactly your arguing for here?

That the information gap and decision delay between homeland and colony is still going to be much lower in colonization of Mars than it was for the historical New World, with all the consequences of it.

Well, does businesses actually need to own land? Its certainly the current thing, but we also once accepted owning people too. Corporations being able to own land is not a requirement, and there are certainly some arguments against it, though I'm not certain either way, just leaving it open.

It's either businesses or government, pick your poison.
Trying to replicate small landowner society this way just won't work. The complexity and cost of optimally yet directly managing land for profit tends to be very bad at small scale, so few people would stick with it, and instead would sell land to corporations or big landowners as soon as it appreciates in value. Which goes back to my other question - what does a Martian colonist do with a square kilometer or so of random Martian desert? If he can't make any meaningful money off of it yet has to spend any money or effort on maintaining it, guess what he's gonna do. Get rid of it.

Eh, patents I think are completely legitimate to consider as part of property rights: its not that different from other sources of rent: a cattle farm paying me rent for using my land doesn't seem outside the realm of comparison for them paying me rent for the use of a cow collar I invented. Patents and intellectual property are very much discussed in terms of ownership and just compensation for the labor of its production.

One of the fundamental differences is that there is a finite amount of cattle farms with specific assets and locations.
Meanwhile patents, like any other information, are infinitely copiable and can be sent through the vacuum in practically infinite amount at the speed of light at negligible cost.
You can enforce material property rights reliably by controlling power of the law of the land and its enforcement - aka ban cattle rustling, have effective police and border security, as long as that works no one can take your cattle and expect to get away with it. It's even easier to protect the real estate itself - just have the state administration recognize your ownership and have good enough police to kick off squatters if needed. Meanwhile patents? You get messy international lawsuits that China thumbs its nose at, because law of one land has no power on another land if the other land says so. If you even found out that your intellectual property was copied in the first place, as that is never assured - as opposed to having your cattle stolen - you will notice that your cattle is gone.

Would you consider Earth corporations owning much of the land on Mars, especially with Martian colonists, a problem, or not?

A problem to who? Colonists generally i think would have little use for the land, the other option is governments, and they are going to be more or less involved anyway.
Even if they wouldn't be allowed to own the land, that only incentivizes them further to try own the government which owns the land.

 

[JagerIV]

Ah, I think I see where confusion is mostly coming in here of mixing the levels of property being discussed: your talking more on the upper state level, while I'm thinking more on the lower state and private.

Lets see if we agree mostly on the high level of the principles, since I think we might not have that much disagreement, the semi anarchy of intra-state property rights, to get to the ideas of interstate property rights, where principles and justice might hold more sway.

Lets call the highest level of Government the Federation, in the old school science fiction tradition. This government can exist in two statuses.

1) The Unbound State: The State has an unlimited mandate over everything: all human's are part of the state based on being human, and all the known universe is also under its jurisdiction. Here the Federations claim to property right as the state is clear and easy, that simply everything is by right part of it.

Mandate of Heaven, no other Governments have truly legitimate claims.

2) The bounded State: The State recognizes some limits on the legitimate expanse of its boarders.

Practically, these need to be based on some concept of Possession: its yours if you possess it, and don't really own it if you don't.

Possession then I think involves two parts:

1) Presence: you have some sort of presence in the territory you control.
2)Projection: you can in some way defend the claim.

The two go hand together: you have to be present to be aware of violations of your claims, and to defend agianst incroachment.

Do we agree at this higher level?

 

[Marduk]

Ah, I think I see where confusion is mostly coming in here of mixing the levels of property being discussed: your talking more on the upper state level, while I'm thinking more on the lower state and private.

Lets see if we agree mostly on the high level of the principles, since I think we might not have that much disagreement, the semi anarchy of intra-state property rights, to get to the ideas of interstate property rights, where principles and justice might hold more sway.

Lets call the highest level of Government the Federation, in the old school science fiction tradition. This government can exist in two statuses.

1) The Unbound State: The State has an unlimited mandate over everything: all human's are part of the state based on being human, and all the known universe is also under its jurisdiction. Here the Federations claim to property right as the state is clear and easy, that simply everything is by right part of it.

Mandate of Heaven, no other Governments have truly legitimate claims.

2) The bounded State: The State recognizes some limits on the legitimate expanse of its boarders.

Practically, these need to be based on some concept of Possession: its yours if you possess it, and don't really own it if you don't.

Possession then I think involves two parts:

1) Presence: you have some sort of presence in the territory you control.
2)Projection: you can in some way defend the claim.

The two go hand together: you have to be present to be aware of violations of your claims, and to defend agianst incroachment.

Do we agree at this higher level?

De facto all states are a bounded state. Some have some kind of specifically, legally defined, internally developed boundries, both in terms of rights of citizens, administrative subdivisions and geographic scope, and for the rest, the boundries are more practically defined - as in China may *want* many places it doesn't control now, but still isn't sending troops there right now because there may be consequences to it that China would prefer to avoid. These two types of boundries need to be considered their own kind, and in some cases they can interlock or make the other kind irrelevant.
In a more ambitious example, many states in the world would really insist that certain types of speech regarding a certain religion be absolutely forbidden, and they are quite open about it... however, practically they have no way to make it happen. But if they did...

As for possession, these two don't need to go hand in hand. 2 is unnecessary if no one bothers to challenge the claim. 1 is also unnecessary if 2 is widely assumed to be enforced effectively.
Say, USA claims some small island in the Caribbean and keeps no presence on it because it's reserved for some studies or something. However, everyone knows that if some state or non-state actor tries to claim it and does build a presence there, US Navy will show up and most likely kick their asses.

 

[JagerIV]

@Marduk

Sure, there is de facto limits to the claim, but were discussing things on the moral level, not the raw practical level: what is the state's claim to legitimate rule.

The Califate doesn't rule everything, but it generally outlines a right to rule everything. There's what's in the Islamic Civilization, and what hasn't been conquered yet.

Still, it seems your pushing towards the idea property rights are whatever the king says they are, and there are no theory of property rights worth discussing.

In which case further discussions of a theory are totally pointless. If your starting premises are justice and morality don't exist, then were both wasting our time trying to discuss the details of something you don't believe exist.

Edit: Or are you more arguing that they don't exist between states, so if were going to argue a system of property ownership, that discussion only has meaning inside a state?

In which case we can just Start from the Assumption of the Federation as a System government: The Federation rules over known space, and there are no other real competitors.

Thus, the discussion is merely over the boarders of the sub governments and private ownership, which is what I'm more interested in anyways.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk

Sure, there is de facto limits to the claim, but were discussing things on the moral level, not the raw practical level: what is the state's claim to legitimate rule.

The Califate doesn't rule everything, but it generally outlines a right to rule everything. There's what's in the Islamic Civilization, and what hasn't been conquered yet.

Still, it seems your pushing towards the idea property rights are whatever the king says they are, and there are no theory of property rights worth discussing.

In which case further discussions of a theory are totally pointless. If your starting premises are justice and morality don't exist, then were both wasting our time trying to discuss the details of something you don't believe exist.

Edit: Or are you more arguing that they don't exist between states, so if were going to argue a system of property ownership, that discussion only has meaning inside a state?

A lot of my questioning is that morality (which first we would need to pick, and in terms of not just keeping and transfering it but claims, that can be a huge variable) and justice cannot be the only considerations for theory of property. Things like economic viability, security and national interest also need to be considered, to not create a system of legal fiction, or one that no one in their right mind would want to use due to burdens it places either on the state or on the colonists.

In which case we can just Start from the Assumption of the Federation as a System government: The Federation rules over known space, and there are no other real competitors.

That too, and this answer does have an effect on the security factor, lowering its significance in the calculation.

Thus, the discussion is merely over the boarders of the sub governments and private ownership, which is what I'm more interested in anyways.

That in turn stresses the question of motivation. What's the Federation's policy focus in colonizing Mars? Is the focus achieving self-funding for the colonies ASAP? Long term economic benefits and preparing infrastructure for it? Prestige in moving as many people as possible ASAP? Something else?
As which one is the priority would have influence on what system of property claims would serve the goal best. For example if building up infrastructure is the goal, an auction system would serve nicely to help the nascent sub governments fund infrastructure greatly, while also offering a sort of indirect investment based claim system for colonists (you get what you paid in the auction for, whatever the infrastructure fund builds for it is your investment, and as no one wanted to pay more then it's the closest thing to the market value of the land in question at the time).

 

[JagerIV]

@Marduk
Hm, I think were also bumping up against the different underlying assumptions of Natural Law vs Civil Law.

Natural Law posits that there is a justice that exists, and our goal is to discover it and clarify it.

To take your example of a Caribbean Island, if there were people there, the US claimed it, and then kicked everyone off and killed those who resisted, by Natural Law I believe most people can feel that an injustice was done, even if Congress passes a law declaring the natives inhabitation of the Land irrelevant. The issues raised in the Melian Dialog, if you reject the idea Athens was morally right to put the city to the sword just because it was physically capable of doing so.

Thus, via natural law the principles exist over and above the State itself: the State is merely formalizing and implementing the natural order. These principles guide how policy can be implemented, and puts limits on what the Federation is permitted to do to its subjects. A unified principle allows for something to be fair, not merely the whims of the people in Charge.

Without some idea of a natural law, nothing the Federation or is people do could be considered immoral. There is only "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must".

I'm not sure how strong or stable a great state you could build on such principles. If you have an immense Federation with China and America Scale States, there needs to be some idea that the Federation is following some code of Justice that can be appealed to besides raw power.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk
Hm, I think were also bumping up against the different underlying assumptions of Natural Law vs Civil Law.

Natural Law posits that there is a justice that exists, and our goal is to discover it and clarify it.

To take your example of a Caribbean Island, if there were people there, the US claimed it, and then kicked everyone off and killed those who resisted, by Natural Law I believe most people can feel that an injustice was done, even if Congress passes a law declaring the natives inhabitation of the Land irrelevant. The issues raised in the Melian Dialog, if you reject the idea Athens was morally right to put the city to the sword just because it was physically capable of doing so.

Already in this case you enter the territory of inter-state\inter-civilizational competition, where natural law even as a concept may exist, nevermind be agreed upon regarding its precise shape, just on one or no sides.
I'm against unconditional universalist application of natural law. For one, why should we afford considerable protections of it to civilizations who aren't even pretending that they will ever return that favor? It's a "luxury opinion", one that only hegemons can afford to hold, for only as long as they remain hegemons and are never forced to choose between keeping said opinion or remaining hegemons (or remaining in existence).

Why should the West be forced to have a policy "You can destroy us if you can and if that is your principle, but if you try to destroy us, we can slap you around a little bit but have to leave you to try again in the end, because that is our principle, no matter how many times you will try to destroy us, so feel free to keep trying".
I refuse to subscribe to suicidal principles.

As for Athens, considering the lack of outrage in their population, apparently it was within the limits of their, very different from either Christian, or later, Englightenment ideas of natural law, moral system.

Thus, via natural law the principles exist over and above the State itself: the State is merely formalizing and implementing the natural order. These principles guide how policy can be implemented, and puts limits on what the Federation is permitted to do to its subjects. A unified principle allows for something to be fair, not merely the whims of the people in Charge.

Yes, states are built upon the cultural and civilizational values of their populations, at least more or less, if they want to exist for more than a while.
However, said cultures and civilizations often have quite different ideas about what hides behind the term "natural order", though "an order in which we're the ones on top " is a quite common theme.

Without some idea of a natural law, nothing the Federation or is people do could be considered immoral. There is only "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must".

So what are the cultural values of the Federation's population? It's a long late question to ask, but here it is, and without it it's impossible to tell what it's idea of natural law should be.

I'm not sure how strong or stable a great state you could build on such principles. If you have an immense Federation with China and America Scale States, there needs to be some idea that the Federation is following some code of Justice that can be appealed to besides raw power.

Well if the former have the upper hand in forming that system, that's exactly how it would work. For one such Federation would need to achieve some degree of cultural homogeneity if it ever wants to be stable, no amount of ethical or legal perfectionism can get around the situation of a hundred nations all sure that they prefer different ethics and laws.
If there even can be such a thing that universally perfect system of principles, how do you find it when so many are convinced that it's definitely their own?

 

[JagerIV]

Already in this case you enter the territory of inter-state\inter-civilizational competition, where natural law even as a concept may exist, nevermind be agreed upon regarding its precise shape, just on one or no sides.

I'm against unconditional universalist application of natural law. For one, why should we afford considerable protections of it to civilizations who aren't even pretending that they will ever return that favor? It's a "luxury opinion", one that only hegemons can afford to hold, for only as long as they remain hegemons and are never forced to choose between keeping said opinion or remaining hegemons (or remaining in existence).

This argument comes across as so crazy I don't think you actually believe it. is Poland better than Russia because Poland will steal from its citizens more willingly than the Russian government? Or Poland has no morals because Russia is stronger, and likewise Russia has no morals because the US is stronger? This says Russia cannot do anything wrong, because they're too weak to be held to any moral standard. If Russia enslaved Poland, what could we complain about? They're not the Hegemon.

Why should the West be forced to have a policy "You can destroy us if you can and if that is your principle, but if you try to destroy us, we can slap you around a little bit but have to leave you to try again in the end, because that is our principle, no matter how many times you will try to destroy us, so feel free to keep trying".
I refuse to subscribe to suicidal principles.

This is the opposite of Natural Law, so I'm not sure why you think it an argument against natural Law. See above. This is the outcome of the subjective moral system you seem to be holding as the alternative: the only moral system is "I win, you lose".

As for Athens, considering the lack of outrage in their population, apparently it was within the limits of their, very different from either Christian, or later, Enlightenment ideas of natural law, moral system.

. . . we only know about it culturally because it was controversial. From the wiki page itself:

"Winiarczyk (2016), p. 53: "The actions of the Athenians were condemned throughout Greece and in the 4th century BC Athenian rule was associated with the capture of Melos"

Or, from a relatively contemporary source, we see that the treatment of Melos post war was waved as one of the great sins of Athens:

"But I think that, while those who find these words distasteful to listen to will not deny that what I have said is the truth nor, again, will they be able to cite other activities of the Lacedaemonians through which they brought to pass many blessings to the Hellenes, yet they will attempt— as is ever their habit—to denounce our city, to recount the most offensive acts which transpired while she held the empire of the sea, to present in a false light the adjudication of lawsuits in Athens for the allies1 and her collection of tribute2 from them, and above all to dwell on the cruelties suffered at her hands by the Melians and the Scionians and the Toronians,3 thinking by these reproaches to sully the benefactions of Athens which I have just described. "

link

Killing the people of Melos seems to be roughly the equivalent of the Dresden firebombing or nukings of Japan: carried out, justified, and tu queque not as bad as what the Germans or Japanese did, but certainly I wouldn't call any of those events uncontroversial!

Yes, states are built upon the cultural and civilizational values of their populations, at least more or less, if they want to exist for more than a while.
However, said cultures and civilizations often have quite different ideas about what hides behind the term "natural order", though "an order in which we're the ones on top " is a quite common theme.

So what are the cultural values of the Federation's population? It's a long late question to ask, but here it is, and without it it's impossible to tell what it's idea of natural law should be.

Discussing values and principles is the whole point of this discussion! We seem to have stopped on any discussion of them because we first have to hash out with you if principles matter at all. Which you seem to argue they don't. You here seem to re-iterating a principle that morals and principles don't actually exist, just will to power. Even when discussing a single moral community!

Well if the former have the upper hand in forming that system, that's exactly how it would work. For one such Federation would need to achieve some degree of cultural homogeneity if it ever wants to be stable, no amount of ethical or legal perfectionism can get around the situation of a hundred nations all sure that they prefer different ethics and laws.
If there even can be such a thing that universally perfect system of principles, how do you find it when so many are convinced that it's definitely their own?

Obviously there are local conditions, but that's one reason its postulated as a Federation: sub governments are assumed in the structure. Realistically, there's something like 6 layers/scale of power in play under such a federation: individual, family, local power (think county scale) powers (Germany/Poland scale) and Great powers (US, China, EU).

Any such government, to not be a bureaucratic nightmare or subject to constant war over minor disagreements in doctrine, needs some reasonably simple, generally applicable principle based rules.

The Federation cannot reasonably write a lawbook that will satisfactorily handle every possible case of murder. The US and the EU can't do it, and these are relatively small states with fairly homogeneous populations.

However, by Natural Law theory, by nature murder is wrong, and through observation, introspection, and reason we can confirm this. Furthermore, some general principles of murder can be determined, say these two principles:

1) Murder is the planned unjust killing of another.
2) Murder is one of the most serious offenses.

By these natural law, general principles, The Federation can create some general unity of Law, which will also cover 90% of cases. When some jealous man murders a girl for rejecting his advances, 95% of civilized people can recognize that as Murder, and for the 5% who doesn't, the Federation can morally justify Civilizing projects.

And show generally when Federation involvement may be necessary: if someone is convicted of murdering someone who turned out to be alive, there may be problem with local justice. If Murder isn't being treated seriously, either because it is not punished relatively highly compared to other issues, or the locals are not prioritizing solving murders over much less major issues, then there may be a problem requiring Federal intervention.

Is serious punishment 20 years, or 30 years? What separates a life sentence murder vs an execution murder? Eh, the Federation doesn't really need to formalize such minor details generally. Maybe in areas specific to its interests: when a Federal Soldier murders a civilian, it may be Federal jurisdiction, and so the Fed needs some specific rules on that issue.

Or it might be a general principle that crimes be handled by a local courts, and this applies even to Federal soldiers. Unless they're on deployment in an area specifically because that area is failing the bare minimum requirements for Legal enforcement, in which case its a different court's juristiction.

But, local conditions, the nitty gritty of practical enforcement, and exceptions to the rule are what Legistators and judges are there to handle.

 

[Marduk]

This argument comes across as so crazy I don't think you actually believe it. is Poland better than Russia because Poland will steal from its citizens more willingly than the Russian government? Or Poland has no morals because Russia is stronger, and likewise Russia has no morals because the US is stronger? This says Russia cannot do anything wrong, because they're too weak to be held to any moral standard. If Russia enslaved Poland, what could we complain about? They're not the Hegemon.

I don't think you understood my argument at all. In the arena of civilizations and competing moral standards, they more often than not don't care about your standards and consider them wrong, period. They are far more important for relations within a culture, or at least shared civilization.

This is the opposite of Natural Law, so I'm not sure why you think it an argument against natural Law. See above. This is the outcome of the subjective moral system you seem to be holding as the alternative: the only moral system is "I win, you lose".

Good or not, it sure is effective, or at least popular, we have to deal with such facts. If we try to build an ideal system on the basis of ignoring inconvenient realities, it's going to be a joke instead.

. . . we only know about it culturally because it was controversial. From the wiki page itself:

"Winiarczyk (2016), p. 53: "The actions of the Athenians were condemned throughout Greece and in the 4th century BC Athenian rule was associated with the capture of Melos"

Or, from a relatively contemporary source, we see that the treatment of Melos post war was waved as one of the great sins of Athens:

"But I think that, while those who find these words distasteful to listen to will not deny that what I have said is the truth nor, again, will they be able to cite other activities of the Lacedaemonians through which they brought to pass many blessings to the Hellenes, yet they will attempt— as is ever their habit—to denounce our city, to recount the most offensive acts which transpired while she held the empire of the sea, to present in a false light the adjudication of lawsuits in Athens for the allies1 and her collection of tribute2 from them, and above all to dwell on the cruelties suffered at her hands by the Melians and the Scionians and the Toronians,3 thinking by these reproaches to sully the benefactions of Athens which I have just described. "

link

Killing the people of Melos seems to be roughly the equivalent of the Dresden firebombing or nukings of Japan: carried out, justified, and tu queque not as bad as what the Germans or Japanese did, but certainly I wouldn't call any of those events uncontroversial!

The important qualifiers here are "through Greece" and "treatment post war". The barbarians didn't care. I wonder how much of that outrage in this was due to a part of Greek civilization doing it to fellow Greeks, rather than the act itself, if it was committed by someone else, or against someone else.
Secondly, exploitative treatment post-war kinda puts a big question mark over Athen's justification for the conquest in the first place (which was supposed to be something they do reluctantly and out of strategic necessity).

Discussing values and principles is the whole point of this discussion! We seem to have stopped on any discussion of them because we first have to hash out with you if principles matter at all. Which you seem to argue they don't. You here seem to re-iterating a principle that morals and principles don't actually exist, just will to power. Even when discussing a single moral community!



Obviously there are local conditions, but that's one reason its postulated as a Federation: sub governments are assumed in the structure. Realistically, there's something like 6 layers/scale of power in play under such a federation: individual, family, local power (think county scale) powers (Germany/Poland scale) and Great powers (US, China, EU).

Any such government, to not be a bureaucratic nightmare or subject to constant war over minor disagreements in doctrine, needs some reasonably simple, generally applicable principle based rules.

The Federation cannot reasonably write a lawbook that will satisfactorily handle every possible case of murder. The US and the EU can't do it, and these are relatively small states with fairly homogeneous populations.

However, by Natural Law theory, by nature murder is wrong, and through observation, introspection, and reason we can confirm this. Furthermore, some general principles of murder can be determined, say these two principles:

1) Murder is the planned unjust killing of another.
2) Murder is one of the most serious offenses.

By these natural law, general principles, The Federation can create some general unity of Law, which will also cover 90% of cases. When some jealous man murders a girl for rejecting his advances, 95% of civilized people can recognize that as Murder, and for the 5% who doesn't, the Federation can morally justify Civilizing projects.

And show generally when Federation involvement may be necessary: if someone is convicted of murdering someone who turned out to be alive, there may be problem with local justice. If Murder isn't being treated seriously, either because it is not punished relatively highly compared to other issues, or the locals are not prioritizing solving murders over much less major issues, then there may be a problem requiring Federal intervention.

Is serious punishment 20 years, or 30 years? What separates a life sentence murder vs an execution murder? Eh, the Federation doesn't really need to formalize such minor details generally. Maybe in areas specific to its interests: when a Federal Soldier murders a civilian, it may be Federal jurisdiction, and so the Fed needs some specific rules on that issue.

Or it might be a general principle that crimes be handled by a local courts, and this applies even to Federal soldiers. Unless they're on deployment in an area specifically because that area is failing the bare minimum requirements for Legal enforcement, in which case its a different court's juristiction.

But, local conditions, the nitty gritty of practical enforcement, and exceptions to the rule are what Legistators and judges are there to handle.

The issue here is that with murder you have picked a very easy case for such wide universal law. After all, the treatment of such generally doesn't differ all that much across civilizations and even times. As you said, in this matter, the disagreements tend to be minor and in details.
Meanwhile, take something like free speech. Even within the EU member countries can't agree all that much on it. Nevermind EU and USA, despite being part of a shared civilization they have few pretty deep disagreements there. And let's not even get into China or the Arab world.
In terms of world consensus, the issue of homesteading\land claims is more similar to the issue of free speech (possibly even more controversial than that) than to the murder issue.
And even in the case of murder, there are some devils in these details.

Take the principle one - the qualifier "unjust" can get pretty wild. Sure, this works well enough if you have a space EU or space USA. Might even work with space West.
But say, Pakistan joins the space EU, and now you may have a problem. As it happens, someone in Balochistan gets killed for blasphemy. Was it murder? By the principles of space EU, yes, it was murder, and not even some boring one, but a particularly aggravated kind, might even be considered especially severely as a hate crime and act of terror. Meanwhile, in Pakistan that's gonna be controversy at best, with many arguing that killing a blasphemer not only isn't murder, because it's not unjust, but in fact it's even the righteous thing to do, and letting the blasphemer live would be an injustice if anything.
Or in a historical case relevant to our discussion of inter-civilizational ethics, the famous Charles Napier quote about handling the burning of widows.