22. “Labor Theory of Property: Homesteading and the Loss of Subjective Value”
by Thomas K. Duncan
Abstract: Murray Rothbard, in his The Ethics of Liberty, attempts to derive property ownership from the act of homesteading. Under this system, property is claimed through the act of mixing one’s labor with it. However, the theory of homesteading as a means for property rights formation is one that favors production over consumption and denies the subjectivity of value.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
This paper has identified a weakness in the current formulation of libertarianism. It is imperative that we improve our conception of property rights so that it includes the right to use scarce resources without physically changing them.
I think a more important question we should ask is why should one retain 100% property simple because they own the resources of production? Contract law is no enough to defend innovators from the government created aristocracy which control the means of productions. Eventually restriction of opportunity will become a restriction of freedom, and while the individual will not be “forced”into these contracts they will be coerced into them, by a need to survive. One final point, the right of creation is fundamental to the rights of property, and the rights of ownership are imperative to creation. Without them innovation will stagnate and concentrate within the super elite.
I really wonder if this is actually workable.
If one of the developers described (building on consumer-owned undeveloped land) took the owner to court, or vice versa, what proof could he present that he actually owned the land in question? Perhaps if he was fond of taking pictures and videos there (“And here’s a video I took there of the lunar eclipse of 20XX…”), that might sway a judge and/or jury, but such a habit of concrete documentation doesn’t sound like a requirement of ownership in this paper. Without physical proof on the land, there’s a major risk of both false positives and false negatives, isn’t there?
How would one determine the boundaries of a property right acquired like this? Is it the area our naturalist regularly treads upon? Or everything he can see (and enjoy)? We read the example of the daily consumer of untouched nature; is daily enjoyment the requirement? Is weekly sufficient? Monthly? Yearly?
I have a feeling that these practical problems would lead the owners of this type (if there are really that many of them) to compromise their love of undeveloped land with some evidence- not too intrusive, but readily recognizable as the work of man.