OBJECTIVE AND UNAMBIGOUS
Some scholars are of the opinion (btw elegant sentence, n’est-ce pas?) that property rights and hence Homesteading Principles must be objective and unambiguous. We disagree.
Objectivity is a theoretically un-achievable condition. The reason is simple.
Something is objective if it is a scientific truth. As we have shown in our lesson Political Theories And Systems, no Political and hence Economical Theory is based on science and it can never be. If they cannot be based on science, any principle from them cannot be a scientific truth and therefore it cannot be objective.
Un-ambiguity is even worse. What exactly does it mean that something is ambiguous and, by extension, something else is un-ambiguous? In principle, un-ambiguity seems simple: it is something that it is clear to understand. But this is deceptive, clear to whom? You see, this cannot be answered unless we know which culture this person belongs to. This is so because “clarity” is a direct outcome of “common sense” and “common sense” is inherently dependent from culture. It is clear that a wage of 40 USD per hour for a mechanic’s labour is cheap, or is it? In USA may be, in EU it is very cheap while in India is very expensive! Clarity, in the same manner as price, is a subjective value which is not only ill defined but variable from person to person!
Property rights and Homestead Principles cannot be neither objective nor unambiguous. It is for this reason that the Master Contract must be accepted by 100% of the people wishing to operate under it. Because it is them that must accept it as objective and unambiguous. It is them that by accepting it, declare that they agree with its premises and therefore they assume them as objective and unambiguous. It does not work the other way around. Any imposition of any rule pretending to be objective an unambiguous can ever work and it is not Absolute Austro-Libertarian in nature.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Does the Homestead Principle apply to Intellectual Property Rights? We need to address this issue. If an idea is developed first by a person, does this person have some sort of “rights” over this idea once it has left the brain in accordance with the Homestead Principle?
The answer is no. The subject of the non-existent and so-called Intellectual Property Rights was developed in the lesson Intellectual Property Rights Are Dumb. However, it is always a good idea to re-iterate a major point. The Homestead Principle only applies to scarce resources. We have seen in previous sections why it is so. An idea is not a scarce resource since its supply is infinite (i.e. it is possible to make as many copies of the idea as necessary).
Let’s be clear in this, the Homestead Principle does not apply and does not support so-called Intellectual Property Rights. If anything, its rejects them.
CONCLUSION
We have labored through this lesson to clarify the simple but difficult topic of how un-owned properties become owned in an Absolute Austro-Libertarian system. The Homestead Principle is so simple that anybody can understand it and use it, but sophisticated enough to reject cheaters and scammers.
This principle is based mostly on biological necessities and mutually beneficial agreements. It enables coexistence by providing a simple and powerful rule while at the same time maximizes freedom.
In the end, the First Come First Served rule simply makes common sense.
When you are confronted with nonsense, feel free to use this principle. Or not. Your choice.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
