| Having established that the only rational choices for the basis of an ethic are individualism and socialism, and having chosen to base our ethic on individualism, we can now turn to how the ethic can construct rights. The homestead principle is the vehicle. I assert that man has a right to the fruits of his labor. Where the labor is upon unowned resources, it is proper to say that that labor makes those resources his property, to the extent that — and for the duration that — his labor bears fruit. | 個人主義と社会主義しか有利な倫理根幹はないと見たところ、個人主義を根幹として選んだところで、今から権利の組み立てに目を留めれる。その組み立て方法はホームステッドでござる。人は努力の賜物に権利があると主張する。その努力が無主な資源に働く場合、努力が資源を本人の所有にする、努力が賜物を付く程度と存続に限って。 |
| This means that, unlike other theorists in this tradition, I incorporate an expiration in the ownership of property. Further, this means that property rights diminish over time, as labor’s fruits diminish. When we consider punishment for violations of the ethic, violating a attenuated property right will be seen to be less serious an offense than violating a fresher property right. | これで、伝統の別の理論化と違って拙者が所有に満了を組み込む。また、経時的に努力の賜物が減るほど所有も減ることになる。倫理の違反の賠償を考えるときに来たら弱まった所有権利を犯すことが新鮮な所有権利を犯すことほど重度ではない。 |
| This feature is necessary to allow a mechanism for property abandonment that does not require the property owner to positively renounce ownership. Without this feature, any time an owner abandoned a property without notifying anybody, it would forever be ‘owned’ de jure (since it was never renounced), and so it would be wrong to trespass (in theory). All archaeology would be presumptive trespass, unless the archaeologists could secure adequate records that a site was renounced properly or locate the original owners’ heir(s) and get explicit permission. | この特徴が必要でござる。いなければ、所有委付の方法は所有者の形式上の棄権しかない。故に所有者が棄権無しで所有を捨てる度に法律上では所有物で続けれることで他人が永遠に使えられない。考古学全体が見なしに侵害でござる,考古学者が棄権記録か所有継承許可が無ければ。 |
| Let us consider, as an example, a sandcastle. A man goes to an unowned beach, and constructs a sandcastle. My theory finds that the man owns that sandcastle. Hence, it would be wrong for another man to come along and wreck it. However, should the owner leave for some hours or days — however long, until the elements do their work — when he returns, and his sandcastle is gone, then he no longer owns it; he does not even own the land where it used to stand. | 例として砂の城を考えよう。人が無主な海辺に行き砂城を作る。拙者の論理上では本人が砂城を所有する。だから他人が来て砂城を壊すのが不正でござる。だが、所有者が砂城を置いて行きて数時間か数日間か（天資が削る時間）が経った後戻ったら、無くなった砂城がもう本人の所有物ではない。立っていた土地でも所有しない。 |
| Other theories would assert that the man either never truly owned the sandcastle, or that he continued to own the land on which it stood after it was gone. I find both of these alternatives unsatisfactory. The sandcastle might not be a valuable investment in the typical sense, but I would consider it a useful demonstration for teaching the basics of property rights. What one learns in the sandbox can be constructively applied outside the sandbox. | 他の論理上では、本人が最初から砂城に所有権が無かったことに、それとも無くなった後にも所有権があることにする。拙者にはこの両方が意に満たない。正常では砂城が高価な投資ではないが、所有権の基礎を教えるいい方法と思う。砂場で教わったことが砂場外では効果的に使える。 |
| Now, one might say of my theory, “That allows everybody to homestead everything, by asserting that the ‘labor’s fruits’ are the changes wrought by the labor, and by application of the Butterfly Effect, every man can claim their labor has changed the entire world (over time), and that those are the fruits, and therefore they homesteaded everything in the world.” Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, men are not omniscient. We cannot track all of the changes that our labor wreaks. It may be true that every man’s labor changes the whole world, but where a man can’t prove that his labor effected a specific change, it is as good as if he had effected no change at all. | 一つの意義を考えよう。「それでは、みんなが全てをホームステッド出来る。努力の賜物とは努力に代わったものであるならバタフライ効果の使用でみんなが（長時間で）世界を代わって全世界をホームステッドしたことになる」、と。この理屈には残念だが、人が全知で無い限り無効な理屈でござる。努力の効果の全てを分かられない。各々の人が全世界を代わるが本当かも知らないが、人が努力で具体的な変更を起こした証拠が無ければ無効化と同じ結果にしかならない。 |
The Homestead as the Fruits of Man’s Labor
Bookmark the permalink.