In the end the State will give up

Provided the source materials are owned by the labourer, then the product too is owned by the labourer. If there is disagreement about ownership of the source materials then ownership of the product is in dispute. For example, discovery does not equate to ownership.

If I discover a seam of gold in what is shared territory, and we assume discovery does not equate to ownership then incorporating the gold into a piece of jewellery that I make does not confer ownership.

If we assume that to dismantle the property and separate the original materials into constituent parts, so that they may be returned to the original owners, is not the chosen approach, how do we best settle this difficulty? Surely the courts would require that compensation be paid to the others, if the material is not to be dismantled.

So how do we know if the source materials belong to the one who produced the product? Well, before any claim of compensation can be made (by someone other than the labourer) they must first identify which of the source materials they claim... The burden is on them to show that not all of the source materials were owned by the one producing the good(s).

If a payment of compensation is to be made it must be shown that the labourer has been using shared, common goods, that are not his (or her) own. It is better, naturally, if this (challenge) occurs prior to the work on producing the good, and is not retrospective.

For the labourer to have used goods that belong to others can only have happened if they (the claimants) were not aware of the action. For example, if someone (the labourer) secretly produces a crop on a disused and distant field, that goes unnoticed by the landowner. In this case their claim is retrospective.

A thief that steals gold and melts it into some new jewellery can claim to be the legitimate owner of the new piece? Do we own only what we are able to keep? Naturally, yes, what else is ownership?

If we own only what we are able to keep then there can be no tax or compensation for someone who claims ownership of goods that were used in the construction of a product. And equally the product belongs to the labourer only so long as they are able to retain ownership.

Ownership is a matter of pragmatism. There will always be those who claim that the land is theirs or that the sky is theirs, the trick is to avoid and evade these types. There is no such thing as theft, if the victim is unaware.

Taxation, unless the Lockean Proviso has been violated, is stealing in plain sight.


This why the State will fail; they will be too slow, always, to get in the way of those who choose to produce and work. The poacher is quicker than the gamekeeper, for the poacher needs only be in one place to succeed and yet the gamekeeper would need to be everywhere.

Taxes won't last for long. And there is a natural danger in owning too great a quantity of resources because of the risk of reclaiming those from someone who has taken them, such as a squatter.

In the end the State will give up.