Subscribe to our Daily Blog

The Essence of Libety

Please Click ton Ab

Liberty knows no compromise

by Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 10: The Problem of Land Theft

Compiled and Edited

by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Any historical investigation of land titles must go back much further than for more perishable goods. Then, if the victims are lost in antiquity, the land properly belongs to any non-criminals who are in current possession.

Capital goods, consumer goods, or money do not exist by themselves in nature. They must be created. Therefore, their very existence is evidence that they have been used and transformed. But land may have never been used and transformed, in which case, any property title would be invalid.

Suppose Green owns land of which a portion has never been transformed. Thus, his claim to ownership of that portion is invalid. Should another man transform that and Green attempt to oust him by force, Green becomes a criminal aggressor.

Although Crusoe may claim “ownership” of the entire island, in natural fact he owns only the part that he settles and transforms. But should a newcomer (Friday) show up and begin to transform an unused portion of the island, any enforcement of Crusoe's invalid claim would constitute criminal aggression.

On the other hand, for property in land to be valid, it need not be in use continually . The only requirement is that the land has been once put into use. There is no more reason to disallow the land's remaining idle than there is to disallow someone from storing his watch in a drawer.

So, any claim to land that has never been put into use is one form of invalid land title. Furthermore, it is easy to distinguish land in its natural virgin state from land that has at some time been transformed by man.

How about the concept of “adverse possession?” Suppose, for example, Green comes upon a parcel of land that is not obviously owned by someone. Suppose he assumes that the land is un-owned and proceeds to work and use it. Then the original owner shows up. Who is right? If the land bears the mark of a former human use in any way, then it is Green's responsibility to assume that the land is owned by someone. Of course, there is the possiblity that the previously owned land has been abandoned . But the newcomer must not assume that it is no longer owned by anyone.

Nowadays most land has been put into use. Therefore, the invalidating of land titles from never having been used would not be very extensive. Invalidating titles because of a continuing seizure by aggressors would be more extensive and important. Suppose, for example, that centuries ago Smith legitimately owned some land. Then Jones came along and claimed the title to Smith's land by coercion and extracted “rent” from Smith. Now, centuries later, Smith's descendants are still tilling the soil while Jones' descendants (or those who purchased claims) continue to exact tribute from the tillers. Just as in the case of slavery, this is a case of continuing aggression against the true owners of the land by the man whose original and continuing claim came from coercion and violence. In such a case of “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” title should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly landlords.

In this context, the term “feudalism” does not apply to the landed relations of the Middle Ages. Instead, it is used to denote the seizure of land (and extraction of rent) by conquest of the peasants who till the soil. Further, it is not restricted to the case where the peasant is also coerced by violence to remain on the land. That would roughly amount to serfdom which , like slavery, is a continuing aggression against the person of the serf, as well as his property.

“Feudalism,” in the sense that the term is used here, is the seizure by violence of land from its true owners and the continuation of that relationship. Feudal land rent is a continuing annual tribute by producers to their predatory conquerors—e.g. a form of permanent tribute. Furthermore, the peasants need not be descendants of the original victims. Since the aggression is continuing, they are the contemporary victims and the currently legitimate property owners. Thus, this situation fulfills both of our conditions for invalidating current property titles—the current land title is criminal and the current victims can be identified.

However, land rent is not necessarily illegitimate. There is no reason why a person who has transformed land may not then rent or sell it. We can distinguish simply by applying our rules for deciding upon the validity of property titles—e.g. we look to see if the origin of the land title is criminal, and whether the aggression is continuing. If we can't determine whether these conditions exist, thus not being able to clearly identify the criminal, we must conclude that the land title and rent are just and legitimate. That does not usually happen because feudalism is one of the easiest forms of invalid title to detect.

Continue to the next chapter...

Back to the Table of Contents

Visit our Book Store

Visit Our Advertisers

Email for Advertising Rates

Use the link or send an email to: adinfo@flyover-press.com