I do agree that good stewardship of the earth and its resources is of utmost importance. When I refer to homesteading, I am talking about Rothbard's explanation in "The Ethics of Liberty" wherein a human can own land by homesteading it and utilizing it. For example, growing crops or mining for minerals, etc. Obviously there is a limit as to how much a person can physically homestead a property. According to this idea, it would be impractical for one wealthy person to homestead thousands of square kilometers as he cannot possibly maintain such a vast swath of land. That is why Queen Elizabeth has no moral claim on the vastly pristine lands of Canada. She is not working or utilizing that land at all, so how can she claim that it is Crown land?

A good example I like to use of homesteading in practice is the case of an outdoor concert. As the first to arrive I select an area of grass to sit on. It appears that I "own" the entire park. As others arrive, they naturally pick another spot on the grass, leaving me with less. This continues until the entire park is filled with people all claiming their own spot. I, as the first, cannot possibly argue that the entire grassy area is mine as my butt is not that big. It's interesting how humans can do this without some authority dictating where to sit and how much space to take up; it just happens naturally. Of course, this is just an example of the natural order of homesteading as neither I, nor the other concert goers, own the park, but I think you get the idea.

Lastly, I did read and enjoy your 'ON' article. It would be very interesting to see such a development unfold. One point though is that the plot of land that these 'neighbourgoods' are located in, does need to be claimed. Again, if I and 50 other homesteaders are setting up an 'ON', by definition we own that plot of land (whether solely or collectively through shares). As owners of this private property we choose (because it is in our best interest) to be good stewards of the land. Somebody else cannot make a claim on that same plot of land due to the homesteading principle (perhaps the adjacent land, but not the one in use by us). I do not see how land can have 'person-hood' as it does not have consciousness and thus cannot express its will or otherwise launch an objection.