Freeman Stephen wrote:The rights to enjoy and protect the labour they invest in the land. With the exception of some insects animals do not cultivate the land and are simply predators on the vegetation growing without help.
If someone works hard tilling the soil to make it easy for good food crops to be planted and grown, or builds a hotel or does something bringing land from the wild into some kind of useful amenity what right has anyone to that amenity without grant from its provider?
Theres also a part of my claim where an unknown has provided some cultivation. This could be sticky if the unknown or the person who was granted the rights to the cultivation comes along because now their labour is invested inseparable from mine in this part of the claim. If theres no challenge within the period of limitation the state wont protect their rights to the labour carried out by them. Im assuming it was abandoned many moons before the uk was in existence but will i not technically be a thief if the unknown appears in regard to this part of the claim?
Theres also the approach of taking a piece of land by force which is perfectly legitimate for the state (within its own eyes) both within its territorial claim regardless of dispute and outwith if you consider the "moral crusade" in the middle east going on as we speak. Its that last might is right approach i find hard to justify. At least with my technical thievery i have some basis to believe no one wants what im acquiring and im not using violence as my means of acquisition.
Freeman Stephen wrote:The rights of the creator come from the creator. The infringer has no rights which is what is implied by the term infringer.
A mans labour is by definition his own, if it were not so would we not call it someone elses labour. This is not deductive truth but definitive truth in the same way we define the colour we see in say a clear sky to be "blue". We could have defined it as "red" and that would have been the definitive truth. In the same manner labour is defined as the work that its doer does. It is thus their labour.
Does it not follow, by the same principle, that anything that is a faculty of labour belongs to those whos labour it is?
You could argue that violence to extract that creation from its owner is itself labour but then so is the violence to defend it or the stress in being a prisoner for the instant the creation is taken by force. I have heard it said that there is a contract in robbery where the robbed offers the loot in consideration of the right to not be physically injured, but it presumes that the robber has the right to physically injure the robbed despite having no faculty in the robbed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests