Life Without Government: Abandonment

Life Without Government

By

Mitchell Gray


Abandonment

In a previous discussion we talked about private property which is obviously anything that you have acquired through a legitimate claim, such as homesteading previously unused resources, production or transfer of title. Property, once it becomes owned, can never be unowned unless the owner should actively give up ownership of it, or abandons it. When one acquires property, either through homesteading or through transfer of title, that property is and always will be his or his heirs if he so chooses to pass it on to them. It should not matter if that property is in continual use or sits idle for decades. All that is required is that at some point in time the original owner made a legitimate claim to the property at least once. An example would be Frank happening upon a piece of property that has never been worked by man. Frank then sets out transforming 100 acres into ranch land for his cattle. He erects fences and pens and moves his cattle on to the property to graze. Frank has just homesteaded that property and is now the legitimate owner. Ten years later Frank has a heart attack and dies. In his will he stipulates that his title to that land and all improvements should transfer to his son John. John does not desire to be a rancher so he allows his fathers property to go idle. Over time the grass grows, and fences fall but Johns claim to that property has never ceased. John can do one of four things at this point in time. He can either begin using the land again, sell or give away the land, continue to let it sit idle or he can abandon it.

To abandon property some type of action must take place to relinquish ownership. It doesn’t really matter what action is taken so long as the legitimate owner of that proper relinquishes all claims to it and recognizes that whoever takes it over is the new owner. For instance, John could simply post a sign stating that the land is being abandoned and anyone is free to take it up or he could just do nothing at all, which is itself a type of action. If someone should move on to the property and begin mixing their labor with the land and John learns of this he has two options. He can do nothing, thus demonstrating his disinterest in the land and relinquishing title to whomever is currently working it, or he can confront the squatter and order them removed. If he did that he would be asserting his ownership of that property. Doing nothing demonstrates that the land is indeed abandoned.

What if John doesn’t know that someone has squatted on his property, should die and leave his land to his daughter, Sara, who decides to use her fathers property to build a shopping mall? Upon arriving she finds that someone has erected a house and began farming the property. In fact, she finds out that they have been there for twenty years without her fathers (John) knowledge. Do those people have any just claim to the property? No, they do not. John may not have done anything with the land but he certainly considered it his property which is evidenced by the fact that he passed it on to his daughter. Though these people have been living and working this land for twenty years they have been living and working land that was never theirs to begin with since the legitimate owner, though allowing the property to go into disuse, never relinquished ownership of the property. Sara has a few options at this point. She can either give up ownership of that portion of the land currently being used by the squatters or she can sell the land to the squatters (or even rent it to them) or order them to vacate the property. The squatters have two options: They can either buy (or rent) the property or leave. Though they have been on that land for twenty years they have been on that land for twenty years illegitimately.

It might seem like a harsh thing to eject someone from something that was their home for twenty years but it is actually the only fair outcome. Their failure to properly research the ownership of that property does not give them to the right to steal it from the legitimate owner. Squatting is the act of making an illegitimate claim over property in an attempt to steal it from the legitimate owner. While in some cases it is permissible today that does not make it right. Theft is immoral no matter what the property is and no one can make an immoral and illegitimate claim to property declare legitimate ownership of it. Sara would then be justified, as the legitimate owner of the property, to evict the squatters. Time does not matter. It doesn’t matter if the squatters were on the land two days or two hundred years. They never had a legitimate claim to the property therefore their continued presence on it is actually a violent invasion of the legitimate owners property rights.

Death is also another way to abandon property. If Frank had died without passing the land on to anyone then that property would return to its unowned state. Death marks the end of ownership of property since to own something action must take place. With Franks passing we cannot say that Frank is still the legitimate owner of that property since Frank is no longer with us. If he wills it to John then it is now Johns. If he does not then it is unowned and free to be homesteaded.