Another poster recently stated that property rights come from the admixture of labor with resources. This idea, called the admixture theory of property, also known as the homesteading theory of property or the labor theory of property, was first suggested by Locke. The idea is that ownership of property comes the use of labor upon natural resources to effect change upon the resources and thereby profit (profit to mean gain). I present to you that this theory, while useful on some occasions, is largely unhelpful in presenting an understanding of modern property rights.
I'm limiting my statements here to real property, that is land, while understanding that rules involving personal property may be a bit different.
The admixture theory holds that someone who works land from profits from that labor becomes its owner.
There are a number of flaws with this theory. One is that it encourages trespass and thereby serves to undermine, rather than support, a traditional view of private ownership of land. Under the admixture theory, a trespassing party could utilize the land to profit from it, and thereby obtain ownership of the land. In other words, someone could sneak onto the land of another, mine the land or otherwise profit from the land, and thereby claim ownership of the land. This flies in the face of private ownership of land at all and offends the traditional understanding of one man having a superior claim of ownership against another. It also places a very high burden upon the property owner to perpetually police his property and ensure that no one else is using it to profit. The admixture theory also implies, but doesn't necessarily state, that the person who is best able to profit from land should be its owner, that is that a person who is able or willing to make a more profitable use of land should have a better claim of ownership to the current owner who is willing to utilize the land in a less profitable manner. Which brings us to the next issue.
The admixture theory does not support the non-profitable use of land. Under the admixture theory, a property owner could have difficulty maintaining a claim to ownership of land that was not engaged in profitable activities. This leads to all sorts of problems as it makes it difficult to leave a field fallow or just have a lawn or forest for enjoyment, rather than to profit from it (of course enjoyment is a form of profit, but I think most people would claim that an actual monetary profit would be superior in most cases). Again, this opens up a whole can of worms. If a farmer rotates his crops, is he profiting from the field he leaves fallow for a season? What if he leaves it fallow for a year, or five, or ten? What if an owner simply departs from the land for a period of time and lets it fall into non-profitable disrepair, should his ownership rights be subsequently voided automatically? The notion that an owner must profit from the land to maintain ownership flies in the face of the equitable idea that owners should have the right to enjoy and use their property as they see fit.
In addition, the admixture theory of property just doesn't hold water to the legal title theory of property. The legal title theory is, basically, that ownership of property descends from grantor to grantee as recorded by the legal system through a network of conveyances. These transfers of ownership have their ultimate root in the original source of ownership by the government which took ownership either through treaty or through the barrel of a gun. And let me tell you, land taken by treaty is way in the minority. These ownership rights are further supported by the government which holds a legal monopoly on the use of violence, so again, the rights of owners are supported by the barrel of a gun.
While an abstract examination of prehistoric property rights using the admixture theory is interesting, in the fact that admixture theory is in no way representative of how we view property rights in a contemporary context. Consequently, suggesting that modern ownership descends from admixture of labor is absurd as that theory would turn what we think of as property rights on its head and places far higher burdens and responsibilities upon property owners than we currently assign to them.
Now all this is not to say that true homesteading, which I will define here as the use of property unowned by other individuals and unused by the state (which I will assume is the de facto owner of any land unowned by individuals or their agents), doesn't have a place. However, to use labor admixture as the primary source of title is flawed for the reasons I establish above.
I'm limiting my statements here to real property, that is land, while understanding that rules involving personal property may be a bit different.
The admixture theory holds that someone who works land from profits from that labor becomes its owner.
There are a number of flaws with this theory. One is that it encourages trespass and thereby serves to undermine, rather than support, a traditional view of private ownership of land. Under the admixture theory, a trespassing party could utilize the land to profit from it, and thereby obtain ownership of the land. In other words, someone could sneak onto the land of another, mine the land or otherwise profit from the land, and thereby claim ownership of the land. This flies in the face of private ownership of land at all and offends the traditional understanding of one man having a superior claim of ownership against another. It also places a very high burden upon the property owner to perpetually police his property and ensure that no one else is using it to profit. The admixture theory also implies, but doesn't necessarily state, that the person who is best able to profit from land should be its owner, that is that a person who is able or willing to make a more profitable use of land should have a better claim of ownership to the current owner who is willing to utilize the land in a less profitable manner. Which brings us to the next issue.
The admixture theory does not support the non-profitable use of land. Under the admixture theory, a property owner could have difficulty maintaining a claim to ownership of land that was not engaged in profitable activities. This leads to all sorts of problems as it makes it difficult to leave a field fallow or just have a lawn or forest for enjoyment, rather than to profit from it (of course enjoyment is a form of profit, but I think most people would claim that an actual monetary profit would be superior in most cases). Again, this opens up a whole can of worms. If a farmer rotates his crops, is he profiting from the field he leaves fallow for a season? What if he leaves it fallow for a year, or five, or ten? What if an owner simply departs from the land for a period of time and lets it fall into non-profitable disrepair, should his ownership rights be subsequently voided automatically? The notion that an owner must profit from the land to maintain ownership flies in the face of the equitable idea that owners should have the right to enjoy and use their property as they see fit.
In addition, the admixture theory of property just doesn't hold water to the legal title theory of property. The legal title theory is, basically, that ownership of property descends from grantor to grantee as recorded by the legal system through a network of conveyances. These transfers of ownership have their ultimate root in the original source of ownership by the government which took ownership either through treaty or through the barrel of a gun. And let me tell you, land taken by treaty is way in the minority. These ownership rights are further supported by the government which holds a legal monopoly on the use of violence, so again, the rights of owners are supported by the barrel of a gun.
While an abstract examination of prehistoric property rights using the admixture theory is interesting, in the fact that admixture theory is in no way representative of how we view property rights in a contemporary context. Consequently, suggesting that modern ownership descends from admixture of labor is absurd as that theory would turn what we think of as property rights on its head and places far higher burdens and responsibilities upon property owners than we currently assign to them.
Now all this is not to say that true homesteading, which I will define here as the use of property unowned by other individuals and unused by the state (which I will assume is the de facto owner of any land unowned by individuals or their agents), doesn't have a place. However, to use labor admixture as the primary source of title is flawed for the reasons I establish above.