I have a quick question for the community to wax over. Consider a society where you have absolute land rights. You are invited to a friend's property for a visit and must pass through his neighbor's land in order to get there (and are allowed to do so). It is set up as such (it could be many things, but just for simplicity):
Now, the reason why is not necessarily important. But what if landowner Green attempts to expel you from his property, but Blue refuses to let you pass? I suppose the easiest solution would be that Blue agrees to a two-way passage, and is therefore held to his word. But Rothbard suggests that promises may not be enforced, so that I would have to pay Blue for two-way passage just to keep him to his word.
The idea of paying someone a small amount, even if it is garunteed back, everytime you need access to "locked-in" areas seems knd of contrived. Thoughts?
Presumably green would have an exit easement through blue's property, which you'd use. You'd get out the same way you got in.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Just fly out.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Jon: But what if none existed? As in, Blue and Green were conspiring. I guess, though, you should just not enter any land without an easement.
Stranger: Keeping with Rothbard, doesn't he say that property extends into the sky and that air routes would have a market like any other? Or were they seperate from land ownership?
Another note... What if you were birthed in the locked territory? Theoretically, a system of "legal" Rothbardian slavery could be established. Once it was achieved, the system could continue until Blue decided to opt out. Blue will not allow passage on any condition, and Green excises a rent through labor. Then, he simply pays Blue his share and the system continues.
Property must not be used to deny reasonable movement.
Edit: Absolutely no offense intended, but you're speaking Smug!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
According to what? Certainately not Rothbard's absolutist view. And I'm sorry that everything is going back to Rothbard, but he is the only libertarian I am really familiar with right now. If anyone can sum up other popular / relevant land theories, it would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: Sorry, these are my first posts in this community so I'll have to adjust.
I became a libertarian from listening to neo-conservative radio, so I can't say that I know anything about famous libertarian thinkers. From what I've read about Rothbard on these boards, I don't really like what he had to say.
I find it a bit curious that people revel in these sort of counterfactual scenarios. Either way, green allowed you in to his/her property, presumably. Had there been no easement, they must've allowed you in some other way; the owner of the green square has every obligation to allow you some sort of exit - that is the implicit presumption involved in your being invited there in the first place. Had he lied about there being an easement to his/her property, then he/she is guilty of fraud.
Welcome to the forums! Do you consider yourself a libertarian? I hope you stick around!
Jon Irenicus: I find it a bit curious that people revel in these sort of counterfactual scenarios. Either way, green allowed you in to his/her property, presumably. Had there been no easement, they must've allowed you in some other way; the owner of the green square has every obligation to allow you some sort of exit - that is the implicit presumption involved in your being invited there in the first place. Had he lied about there being an easement to his/her property, then he/she is guilty of fraud. -Jon
Right, both Green and Blue allowed entrance at Point A in time. But at Point B, once you had entered Green's property, Blue no longer allowed passage. Yet, if you are born on Green's property, and Blue will not let you pass, then what are you to do?
Stranger: Thanks for the welcome! I am definately a libertarian, and on the fence about minarchy vs. anarchy.
Well, I'm Ego! What reservations do you have? Under your miniarchist system, would there be taxation?
If there's an easement, Blue has no option to refuse you. If there isn't, again it was implicit in Blue's agreement to let you in through. If you're born on Green's property the obligation to allow you exit in the absence of an easement falls squarely on them.
Ego: Well, I'm Ego! What reservations do you have? Under your miniarchist system, would there be taxation?
Actually, I'm more anarchist than minarchist. My father in unconvinced of market provided national defense, so he still holds a tiny amount of government as necessary.
Jon: The responsibility of Green? He is the one maintaining the system of "slavery".
That is Green's attempted aim - if Green wants you off their property but is responsible for you being there in the first place, that individual is still obligated to allow you an exit.
It is Blue's decision. You are saying that there is an expressed easement that obliges Blue to provide an exit. I disagree with that, but it is beside the point if you were born on Green's land. When it is not Blue's intention to let you leave, under Rothbardian Land Theory you could not. Not that Green could refuse your exit, but that he cannot force you on to Blue's property. And Green could rightfully extract a rent. In the case of lifelong debt, it would be extracted through forced labor.
Ego:I became a libertarian neoconservative from listening to neo-conservative radio,
On topic:
How did Green and Blue come about? Without knowing that we can not solve this.
Did Blue sell the interior of his parcel to Green? A Common Law implicit easement exists if that the case. Blue can't own it if he can't get to it.
Did Blue homestead around Green? If thats the case then Blue could not completely surround green as Blue could not homestead the road Green already uses for access.
Did Green sell the outside of his parcel to Blue? Common Law grants Green no implicit easement, so he better have a contractual one.
Did Blue buy all the parcels around Green? A Common Law easement also exists, for the same reasons as when Blue sold the interior of his parcels.
Common Law's justification is simple: You can't trap someone within your property.
Peace
Ego: From what I've read about Rothbard on these boards, I don't really like what he had to say.
From what I've read about Rothbard on these boards, I don't really like what he had to say.
Well, don't judge Rothbard by what other people say about him. Read his work yourself before you judge.
Whether or not one agrees with his theories, the late resurgence of individualist anarchism and libertarianism in general can be credited in major part to him, and his economics have provided some clarity and depth to Austrian theory that is not recognized nearly enough by the mainstream.
I would strongly advise you to read For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, both available on mises.org in text and audio formats. I'm sure you'll agree with most of his general conclusions, even if you disagree on the finer points. And he would have (did, in fact) welcome dissent over the fine points - as he said of Konkin's theory (agorism), it makes the movement polycentric.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ok, let's say...
Smith and Jones are working together on this. Smith hikes out into unowned land and clears a plot. Jones then creates the blue barrier of his property around it. Anyone born on Smith's land - say, Smith's or Jone's children - can be refused passage by Jones. Smith, who now has persons on his property, has every right under Rothbard's absolutist property rights to extract rent, just as Jones can refuse passage. Thus, Smith can sustain himself on the forced labor of his renters and provide a cut for Jones.
I realized it is an incredibly contrived example... But it still uses Rothbard's logic fully and works well enough for discussion. Using this, though, the "slaves" could only be kept legitimately if a) They were decendants of Jone's or Smith's children or b) Someone else agreed to "seed" the land with renters.
Well in this example Jones still has to follow the common law doctrine called "duty of care" meaning he has to act in a reasonable manner with himself and his property to not inflict bodily harm or property damage which preventing them from leaving certainly would since they could starve etc etc. You cannot use your property rights to harm another which blockading them definitely is. This extreme scenario would most certainly fit this old precedent. Obviously it would not allow the Smith's the right to do whatever they wanted on the Jones property but it might demand an easment with restrictions.
I know you said this is an incredibly contrived example but I am still trying to think of an example of this happening in reality.
Also the fact that Smith had to travel through Jones land (before it was his) to homestead his property would lead to alot of legal issues for Jones who might find it far easier to grant an easment since a court might already demand such.
Also the issue of the descendants born on the Smith land well the contractual relations dont apply since they are their own soveriegns and they did not make any contract themselves that could be binding. And an easement is also a permanent condition unless revoked.
On top of that even if my contract did not specify my right to exit from my landlords property (which it does not) I am protected by the limitation of force placed upon my landlord since I am not his property but a free agent who demands a Duty of Care.
Rodahue:But it still uses Rothbard's logic fully
No it doesn't.
Ownership does not include a right to imprison. Anyone on your property has the right to leave, it doesn't matter how you subdivided it.
You can't invite someone into your home and say, "I give you permission to be in my home, but not to be on my lawn" effectively trapping him in your house. You can forfeit your rights of ownership through your actions and thats what you've done when you let someone cross your property, you no longer have the right to deny him egress from your property.
Deist:This extreme scenario would most certainly fit this old precedent. Obviously it would not allow the Smith's the right to do whatever they wanted on the Jones property but it might demand an easment with restrictions.
The common law easement requires that Smith use the least intrusive route.
Exactly ! What JonBostwick says.
JonBostwick:The common law easement requires that Smith use the least intrusive route.
True it does and as the cases differ the conditions of restrictions do as well.
Jon Bostwick, you have got to stop making off-topic comments about me; just because I'm not a radical anti-self-defense anti-victim left-"libertarian" does not mean I'm a neo-conservative.
MacFall: Ego: From what I've read about Rothbard on these boards, I don't really like what he had to say. Well, don't judge Rothbard by what other people say about him. Read his work yourself before you judge. Whether or not one agrees with his theories, the late resurgence of individualist anarchism and libertarianism in general can be credited in major part to him, and his economics have provided some clarity and depth to Austrian theory that is not recognized nearly enough by the mainstream. I would strongly advise you to read For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, both available on mises.org in text and audio formats. I'm sure you'll agree with most of his general conclusions, even if you disagree on the finer points. And he would have (did, in fact) welcome dissent over the fine points - as he said of Konkin's theory (agorism), it makes the movement polycentric.
Absolutely, I'm sure I'd agree with him on the major concepts. I just think that many "Rothbardians" have a view of property and homesteading with which I can't agree.
JonBostwick: Rodahue:But it still uses Rothbard's logic fully No it doesn't. Ownership does not include a right to imprison. Anyone on your property has the right to leave, it doesn't matter how you subdivided it. You can't invite someone into your home and say, "I give you permission to be in my home, but not to be on my lawn" effectively trapping him in your house. You can forfeit your rights of ownership through your actions and thats what you've done when you let someone cross your property, you no longer have the right to deny him egress from your property.
You are missing the point. Three separate people are involved. It is not that I am splitting my own property and imprisoning you, but that Jones will not allow you on his property, which surrounds the property you were born on. I am colluding with Jones for this effect. Within Rothbard's land theory - which is absolutist and has no Duty of Care or Implied Easement - you have no legal standing that I can think of.
Deist: "Well in this example Jones still has to follow the common law doctrine called "duty of care" meaning he has to act in a reasonable manner with himself and his property to not inflict bodily harm or property damage which preventing them from leaving certainly would since they could starve etc etc."
Rothbard in no way advocates "Duty of Care." In fact, in The Ethics of Liberty, he specifically says that a parent may allow his child to starve - that the parent has absolute rights over their property and no one, regardless of moral claims, can force them to feed the child at their own expense. If you are saying that refusal of passage does not warrant loss, than Rothbard would invoke both the disutility of having his property rights "aggressed" against and also the monetary loss from the slave operation.
I do not mean to be condescending but the Rothbardian approach does not actually conflict with the duty of care. It is implicit in nearly all tort which is something Rothbard believed in and applied. Property use has it's limits when it inflicts physical harm or physical damage.
As far as Rothbards approach to Parent Child relations I view as a contradiction of his overall approach. But he does use the Duty of Care in many cases and does not revoke it.
To say that Rothbard revokes Duty of care would be to say that Rothbard does not agree with common law assumptions of negligence which once again is so ingrained into the common law that it would contradict nearly eveything he had to say about the common law. I just think he was contradictory in his view of Parent Child relations and that this does not branch into or poison his overall legal philosophy which was merely the application and critique of previous developments.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know of any instances where he invokes Duty of Care. He explicitly states that law should not govern moral. Only the aggression of one against another may be considered crime. But to say that a person is responsible for neglecting "Duty of Care" is to ignore his right to property. If he must act "responsibly", does he even own the property? Certainately an accidental death from carelessness still requires reparations, but inaction? If a man does not pay for the medical bills for a pauper, and that pauper dies, is he responsible?
This is not a case of inaction but a use of property to confine someone which is the difference. As far as him never mentioning Duty of Care I believe because he either felt he did not need to since it is so essential to the common law or because he may have not known what it would be called since he did not work full time in the legal sphere but he uses the concept repeatedly. Duty of care does not mean you need to take care of a pauper it means you have to use your property and yourself in such a way as to not inflict physical harm on someone else directly or indirectly.
Deist: Duty of care does not mean you need to take care of a pauper it means you have to use your property and yourself in such a way as to not inflict physical harm on someone else directly or indirectly.
Hence why my landlord cannot shoot me or do whatever is not made explicit in my contract even though I am on his property. Now as far as kids well I think the parents chose to have them and hence they have an implicit duty to take care of the future free agents otherwise they are being what common law would say is negligent. No one else chose to have them so the duty falls on none other unless they give them up to an adoption agency etc etc.
In the case of the pauper vs the type of duty of care applied to children there is a historical difference due to the mental, physical and personal background when it applies to a parent and child vs someone on the street.
My issue is in the ambiguity of indirect harm. Is halting your wheat-producing company indirectly harming a portion of the population?
And I've only read a few of Rothbard's works and am totally new to libertarianism, so all of this unfamiliar to me... Judging by his discussion on children, the only thing I can derive is a disbelief in Duty of Care. If you insist he believes otherwise, I'd really like to see at least one example.
Edit: In response to your new post... I understand that the landlord may not aggress against you, but that is not the case... It is a matter of Jones simply refusing passage, where you are on Smith's property. He is not shooting you, only excerising his absolute right to property. (According to Rothbard.)
Also, the idea of "obligation" is exactly what Rothbard is addressing. Obligation is a moral concept unless allowed to be regulated by law. I shot him. He struck her. You failed to oblige him? This is different from fraud, where an exchange has occured. I can promise to show up for work - and you may feel I am obligated to - but if no change in goods has occured, what can I be held liable for?
I am sorry I should have clarified what I meant by indirect harm. I mean by lack of intent for instance being negligent while driving your car or letting some litter go and then it travels onto someones property because of the wind.
As far as an example of Rothbard supporting a duty of care you can find it when it comes to his support of tort for negligent actions or any other Tort since the concept is implicit in Tort law. For instance we cannot go walking down a street and swing our fists and expect other to avoid them or what if we drive dangerouslly so the common law came up with a doctrine called Standard of care or Duty of care. It is the basis of people behaving respnisbily to other people. You can find it in Rothbards approach to Liability especially.
Unfortunately I cannot stay on this thread since I have to head out of the house but Duty of care does not mean giving a pauper your money it simply means being responsible enough to avoid physical damage on others be it negligent or not. If you like we can discuss this tomorrow?
I am not swinging my arms, but refusing to stop another from doing so.
And I would love to continue the discussion later. (Plenty of homework to get back to.) Until then...
Sincere regards
But you are blocking them from taking care of themselves. It all goes back to the fact there are certain relations that people owe even to trespassers. For instance someone knocks on your door can you shoot them withouth knowing why they are knocking on your door? Lets say I then through them in the basement and lock them up and alert no one about them. Well that violates duty of care since they are free agents and I am using them to prevent.
When I bring up my landlord preventing me from leaving or getting to my car he could potentially do that withouth being a violation of contract BUT he cannot since I am a rational free agent he has limits with what he can go to me and using a property boundry to inflict harm by not allowing leaving (that does not damage your yard) is a direct use of your land to inflict harm and hence an easement would be granted because your property rights end when they physically harm someone else.
Okay talk to you tomorrow. Good luck on the homework.
Ego: Jon Bostwick, you have got to stop making off-topic comments about me; just because I'm not a radical anti-self-defense anti-victim left-"libertarian" does not mean I'm a neo-conservative.
I believe your premises here are rather silly. I'm not anti-self-defense or anti-victim. And I'm a left-libertarian. It seems to me that you specialize so much with anti-leftism that you are blinded to the broader problem of statism. Because the right are a bunch of individualist anarchists, right? Ha!