Is your "worse off due to being excluded from the land" how much worse off they are from not being permitted to trespass or how much worse off they are for not being able to treat the land as theirs, which would include excluding others? The latter is likely to be much larger.
Is your "worse off due to being excluded from the land" how much worse off they are from not being permitted to trespass or how much worse off they are for not being able to treat the land as theirs, which would include excluding others? The latter is likely to be much larger.
Well, being excluded from land implies that one can neither use nor appropriate it, both of which might benefit one, so I guess the second. Yes, the latter is likely to be larger, but since I think that appropriation of un-owned land requires compensation to those excluded, the cost of no longer being able to appropriate the land may be lower than you are thinking.
When I appropriate land I don't just keep you from appropriating it I keep everyone else from appropriating it. Do I owe each of them the full value to him of being able to appropriate it?
Thinking about it, no, I do not owe each of them the full value to them of being able to appropriate it. There are three points.
First, a minor point. If it turns out you would /not/ appropriate the land even if I left it, then my taking it would represent the "loss" to you of an opportunity to do something you don't actually want to do, and that deserves zero compensation, in my view. So I prefer to talk about the value to the others of their actually appropriating it.
Second, supposing there are only two of us, then I do not owe the /full/ value to you of appropriating the land, where I understand this as the /gross/ value. For, if I were not to appropriate it, then you would (we shall suppose, taking account of the first point), but in that case you would owe me compensation for my no longer be able to appropriate as I wanted, and so the net benefit you would receive is actually the full value /less the compensation you would have to pay me/. [Actually, I reckon it is less than half of the value to you of the difference between your owning the land and my doing so.] I don't see a problem here. There is rich farming land atop hordes of minerals. The would-be miner can easily compensate the would-be farmer for not be able to engage in her (less profitable) activity, and so will be justified in appropriating. The farmer will not be able to compensate the miner, and so will not be justified in appropriating the land—which, in my view, is the right answer. And, when things are more equal, it will be easy for me to secure ownership of my plot in the state of nature by (eg) renouncing all claims over an equal plot elsewhere, for you to take.
Third, supposing there are many more of us, I do not owe /each/ of other the amount indicated under the second point. Rather everyone else has to split that amount amongst themselves. I have argued that elsewhere in these comments.
Yes, good question, to which I do not currently have an answer. I need to think about it, and maybe it has to so with my claim that "the cost of no longer being able to appropriate the land may be lower than you are thinking".
Is your "worse off due to being excluded from the land" how much worse off they are from not being permitted to trespass or how much worse off they are for not being able to treat the land as theirs, which would include excluding others? The latter is likely to be much larger.
Well, being excluded from land implies that one can neither use nor appropriate it, both of which might benefit one, so I guess the second. Yes, the latter is likely to be larger, but since I think that appropriation of un-owned land requires compensation to those excluded, the cost of no longer being able to appropriate the land may be lower than you are thinking.
When I appropriate land I don't just keep you from appropriating it I keep everyone else from appropriating it. Do I owe each of them the full value to him of being able to appropriate it?
Thinking about it, no, I do not owe each of them the full value to them of being able to appropriate it. There are three points.
First, a minor point. If it turns out you would /not/ appropriate the land even if I left it, then my taking it would represent the "loss" to you of an opportunity to do something you don't actually want to do, and that deserves zero compensation, in my view. So I prefer to talk about the value to the others of their actually appropriating it.
Second, supposing there are only two of us, then I do not owe the /full/ value to you of appropriating the land, where I understand this as the /gross/ value. For, if I were not to appropriate it, then you would (we shall suppose, taking account of the first point), but in that case you would owe me compensation for my no longer be able to appropriate as I wanted, and so the net benefit you would receive is actually the full value /less the compensation you would have to pay me/. [Actually, I reckon it is less than half of the value to you of the difference between your owning the land and my doing so.] I don't see a problem here. There is rich farming land atop hordes of minerals. The would-be miner can easily compensate the would-be farmer for not be able to engage in her (less profitable) activity, and so will be justified in appropriating. The farmer will not be able to compensate the miner, and so will not be justified in appropriating the land—which, in my view, is the right answer. And, when things are more equal, it will be easy for me to secure ownership of my plot in the state of nature by (eg) renouncing all claims over an equal plot elsewhere, for you to take.
Third, supposing there are many more of us, I do not owe /each/ of other the amount indicated under the second point. Rather everyone else has to split that amount amongst themselves. I have argued that elsewhere in these comments.
Yes, good question, to which I do not currently have an answer. I need to think about it, and maybe it has to so with my claim that "the cost of no longer being able to appropriate the land may be lower than you are thinking".