Nostr

So if you aren't on your land 24/7/365, someone can come in and claim it by right of occupancy. Right. Totally logical.

Yes, I'm being absurdist, but that's the logical conclusion of that kind of thinking.

If I own land morally, I may make mututally voluntary contracts for the use of the land, as it is my right to do so. This can include renumeration for resources, time spent with my permission on the land, or really anything else agreed on in the contract.

m4dire0701 5mo ago

From individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker:

"It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on **actual occupancy and use.**"

— Benjamin Tucker, *Instead of a Book*, p. 61

"the land monopoly. . . consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon **personal occupancy and cultivation**. . .the individual should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but **personal occupation and cultivation of land**."

— Benjamin Tucker, *The Anarchist Reader*, p. 150

"Ground rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise land would be free to all, and no one could control **more than he used**."

— Benjamin Tucker, quoted by James J. Martin, *Men Against the State*, p. 210

Tucker’s explanation of "property" as denoting possession:

"property" ... "as denoting the labourer's individual **possession of his product** or his share of the joint product of himself and others."

— Benjamin Tucker, *Instead of a Book*, p. 394

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

AU9913 5mo ago

The important word is "AND"

occupation AND cultivation

Hodler 5mo ago

So what if you have a house with a nice big garden where your family lives for 3 generations already and you decide to go travel the world for a year as a once in a lifetime experience? Who's going to decide and what will happen?

m4dire0701 5mo ago

In an anarchist society based on occupancy and use property norms, temporary absences such as vacations or infrequent visits to a second home would generally not be considered abandonment of property. The core principle is that ownership depends on actual use and active occupation, but this principle is understood with reasonable flexibility around temporary non-use.

Such a society might address "abandonment periods" with practical community or customary rules. For example:

- **Reasonable Temporary Absence:** Owners are understood to retain property rights if they are temporarily absent but intend to return, keeping the property maintained or showing ongoing legitimate use (like seasonal homes).

- **Community Enforcement and Agreements:** The community or local users may have informal or formal agreements to respect temporary absences, distinguishing them clearly from true abandonment, which would imply relinquishing claims.

- **Use-Based Reclamation:** If a property is truly abandoned—left unused for a prolonged time without intent to return—others could claim it by occupancy and use, but short absences would normally not trigger loss of ownership.

- **Ongoing Care or Presence:** Leaving someone to care for the property or regular visits can uphold the ownership claim during absences.

This approach aligns with agorist principles opposing absentee ownership but recognizes practical life patterns by differentiating between temporary non-use and abandonment. **The focus remains on active engagement and use rather than strict continuous physical presence.**

Thus, vacation periods or seldom-used summer homes would not lose their property status as long as the owner maintains ongoing legitimate use or clear intent to reclaim. True abandonment would require neglect or clear abandonment of use, allowing others to occupy based on occupancy and use.

This flexible, occupancy-based property norm balances respect for property with preventing absentee landlordism and ensures property rights are grounded in active, demonstrable use rather than just legal titles or long-term absence.

No specific legal codes apply directly, but anarchist or agorist communities would likely develop norms or mutual enforcement mechanisms reflecting these principles. This bears similarity in spirit to some common-law "use it or lose it" principles but interpreted socially rather than through state law.