work in progress
Homesteading is not self evident.
While homesteading theory does have a variety of well-made theories and justifications supporting it, I have yet to see any convincing explanation of how homesteading theory itself is self evident. These theories or justifications typically rely on some other premise, such as argumentation ethics, property rights, self ownership, or incredibility of alternative solutions.
It is a "practical solution" to the problem that matter and space cannot (presently) be created, and the problematic nature of conflicting claims over the same matter/space.
- The core of title theory always reverts to some form of investment in the production of value. Even the theory of homesteading suggests that a person must "improve" the land or resource to gain title. Therefore, homesteading is not merely a method for persons to acquire and monopolize existing resources but rather a method for securing one's investment.
- The purpose of property is not monopolization of existing resources.
It may be practical, and perhaps better than any other system or method, however the source of "who owns what" (i.e. title theory) almost always come back to some recognition of an investment of oneself. Even homesteading theory itself suggests that a person must perform an action to "improve" the land or resource.