Homesteading (First-comer Ethic)

Homesteading is the only rational way to assign Property rights without creating conflict. The first person to mix their labor with unowned resources becomes the rightful owner. This is the only property ethic that can exist without generating endless disputes.

The Problem of Scarcity

Resources are scarce. Multiple people often want the same thing. Without a clear rule for who gets what, we have conflict. The question isn't whether we need property rules - it's which rules avoid creating more conflicts.

Any property ethic must answer: Who owns this resource and why?

Why First-Come, First-Served Works

The homesteading principle is elegantly simple:

Unowned resources belong to no one
The first person to improve them through labor owns them
They can then trade or transfer ownership voluntarily

This creates zero conflict over ownership. There's no ambiguity, no subjective judgment calls, no committee needed to decide. First person to use it owns it.

Example: The Apple Tree

You find an apple tree in the wilderness. You pick the apples, tend the tree, and build a fence around it. You now own this tree and its fruit.

Why? Because you were first to labor on it. Anyone who comes later and tries to take your apples is stealing from you - they're the aggressor, not you.

Why Every Alternative Creates Conflict

Let's examine other proposed property ethics and watch them collapse into chaos:

Late-Comer Ethic

Rule: Later arrivals have equal or superior claims to resources.

Result: No one would ever improve anything. Why plant crops if someone can show up later and claim half your harvest? This system destroys all incentive for production and improvement.

But worse - nothing would get done at all. If late-comers have equal claims, then you'd need everyone's consent before using any resource. Want to eat an apple? You need permission from every person who might show up later. Want to build shelter? Better get consent from all future humans first. We'd literally die waiting for permission to breathe.

Conflict: The late-comer must use force against the first-comer who already improved the resource. Violence is built into the system.

Utilitarian Redistribution

Rule: Resources should go to whoever can use them "best" or who "needs" them most.

Result: Who decides what's "best"? Who measures "need"? This requires a permanent class of judges making subjective decisions about everyone else's life.

Conflict: Every redistribution requires taking property from someone who doesn't consent. The utilitarian calculator becomes a dictator with a gun.

Democratic/Majority Rule

Rule: The majority votes on who owns what.

Result: The majority can vote to steal anything from the minority. Your property rights depend on winning popularity contests.

But even basic survival becomes impossible. Want to eat lunch? Better call a vote first. Need to use the bathroom? Hope you can get majority approval before you soil yourself. Every single action requires democratic consent from everyone affected. Society grinds to a halt as we spend all our time voting on whether people can breathe.

Conflict: Built-in warfare between different groups trying to gain political control. The minority is always under threat of legalized theft.

"Common Ownership"

Rule: Everything belongs to everyone equally.

Logical Contradiction: "Common ownership" is an oxymoron. Ownership means the exclusive right to control something - including the right to exclude others from using it. If both person A and person B "own" the same stick, then neither can exclude the other from using it. But if they can't exclude each other, then neither actually owns it.

You can't have "joint ownership" of the same resource at the same time for the same use. When A is using the stick, B cannot use it simultaneously. Someone must have the right to decide - which means someone has superior ownership rights, destroying the "equal" ownership premise.

Result: The Tragedy of the Commons. No one takes care of what everyone owns. Resources get depleted and destroyed because nobody has the incentive or authority to preserve them.

Conflict: Who decides how common property gets used? You need enforcers, which means some people have more power than others - destroying the equality premise. The supposed "common owners" become subjects ruled by whoever controls the enforcement mechanism.

Socialist/Collective Ownership

Rule: The community/state owns everything and distributes it according to "social need."

Result: Central planners must decide what everyone produces and consumes. This is the Economic Calculation Problem - they can't know what people actually want without market prices.

Conflict: Requires massive force to prevent people from trading freely. Every transaction becomes a potential crime against the collective.

The Logical Proof

Here's why homesteading is logically necessary:

Scarcity exists - not everyone can have everything they want
Conflict must be minimized - any rational ethic seeks to reduce disputes
Clear rules are essential - ambiguous property claims create more conflict
Labor creates value - unused resources are worthless until someone improves them
First use is objective - anyone can verify who was first to labor on a resource

Any ethic that violates these principles will create more conflict than it solves.

The Self-Ownership Connection

Homesteading flows directly from Self-Ownership. You own your body, therefore you own your labor. When you mix your labor with unowned resources, you own the result. This isn't arbitrary - it's logically derived from the more fundamental axiom of self-ownership.

To deny homesteading rights, you must deny that people own their own labor. But if you don't own your labor, then someone else does - which means slavery is legitimate. The only alternative to the first-comer ethic is some form of slavery.

Practical Examples

Parking Spaces: First car to park owns that space until they leave. Late-comers don't get to vote you out of your spot.

Ideas: First person to think of something doesn't own the idea (ideas aren't scarce), but they own any physical implementation of that idea they create.

Land: First person to clear, cultivate, or improve unused land becomes the owner. Late-comers can't claim it was "really theirs" all along.

Conclusion

The homesteading principle isn't just one option among many - it's the only property ethic that doesn't require systematic violence. Every alternative either destroys incentives for production or requires a permanent enforcement class to steal from some people for the benefit of others.

If you want a peaceful, prosperous society, you must respect the first-comer ethic. Any other approach is just legalized theft with extra steps.